Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Return ordered,
showing, for the financial years commencing the 1st day of April, 1880, the 1st day of April, 1890, the 1st day of April, 1900, and for each financial year thereafter—
(1) The total amount of dead-weight debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1929–30, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and miscellaneous receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;
(2) A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities;
(3) A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before House or committee when moved.
Whether in House or Committee.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by speaker or Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.


and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before Committee when moved.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion and, if a Division. Number for and against.


(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 117, of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional
(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 8, of Session 1929–30)."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.

Return ordered,
of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1929–30 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 115, of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered,
showing, with reference to Session 1929–30, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 116, of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).

Return ordered,
respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1929–30, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:
Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1929–30:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1929–30 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the
selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1929–30, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended:
And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.002, of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC BILLS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1929–30; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.003 of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy Chairman.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1929–30, with the total number of signatures in that Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.004, of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SELECT COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1929–30 and the Court
of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees. (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.005, of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered,
of the days on which the House sat in Session 1929–30, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each clay, and the number of hours after 11 p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Prooceedings."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.

Return ordered,
for Session 1929–30 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing, where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.001, of Session 1928–29)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — "DAILY WORKER."

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the issue of the "Daily Worker" of 1st May was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): This issue was one of a number which the Director of Public Prosecutions has had before him.

Mr. SMITHERS: In regard to this and kindred matters will the hon. Member follow the example of what has been done in America and set up a committee to inquire into this propaganda—an independent committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (ISIDORE DREAZEN).

Sir K. WOOD: 2.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of Isidore Dreazen; and whether he has ascertained if he is a member of the executive committee of the Communist International?

Mr. SHORT: This man has now been charged before the Stipendiary Magistrate in Manchester with being in possession of an irregular passport, and has been remanded until the 5th instant. My right honourable Friend is not in a position to make any further statement at this stage.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the statement previously made that this man was an American citizen correct, or not?

Mr. SHORT: If I recall aright, he came here on an American passport, and I think there is some doubt about it.

Mr. MILLS: Is this the gentleman who has been constantly referred to in this House as representing himself to be Mr. Jack Mills !

Sir K. WOOD: Jack Mills!

Mr. MILLS: Yes; it has been used by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (BUILDING TRADE).

Sir K. WOOD: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of insured persons classified in trade groups as belonging to the building trade and recorded as unemployed on 24th June, 1930, or the last convenient date?

The MINISTER OF LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The total for all groups was 102,492. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Statement giving details.

Sir K. WOOD: It is rather a serious position, is it not?

Miss BONDFIELD: Very.

Following is the statement:

Insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the building industry, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain, at 23rd June, 1930.


Occupations.
Insured Persons Unemployed.


Carpenters
…
11,683


Bricklayers
…
4,707


Masons
…
1,371


Slaters
…
910


Plasterers
…
2,715


Painters
…
10,791


Plumbers
…
4,686


Labourers to above
…
33,979


All other occupations
…
31,650


Total
…
102,492

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, the number of prosecutions that have been instituted by his department under the Cinematograph Films Act during the previous three months?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): Seventeen, Sir.

Mr. DAY: In view of the evidence given in recent prosecutions, will the right hon. Gentleman give the advisory committee definite instructions to have regard to the difficulties of independent exhibitors?

Mr. GRAHAM: I can hardly instruct the advisory committee, but I trust that this and other matters will be considered.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that in this matter the independent exhibitor is being practically crushed out by the big combines?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SITUATION.

Mr. DAY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information that he can give the House as to the position in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I circulated on Monday last a statement of the Government of India's appreciation of the situation up to 26th July. I do not expect to receive from them another appreciation of the position until Monday next.

Mr. DAY: Will any official statement be made during the Recess on the position?

Mr. BENN: Yes, I should see no harm in, but an advantage in, circulating to the Press the appreciation to which I have referred.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN (PRISONERS).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will make a statement showing the total number of persons in India who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for offences in connection with the civil-disobedience movement since the beginning of the campaign?

Mr. BENN: I have not this information, but am obtaining it and will supply it to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. DAY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House the latest information of the situation in Egypt?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): No further disturbances have been reported, and, as already stated, the improved situation enabled the High Commissioner to authorise the withdrawal of His Majesty's ships from Egyptian waters on the 29th July.

Mr. DAY: If there is any necessity during the Recess, will an official statement be made, instead of those garbled reports we get in the Press?

Mr. DALTON: I am sure the Foreign Secretary will take steps to see that it
is done, particularly if the Press, or a section of the Press, is misleading to the country.

Mr. MILLS: Has the Under-Secretary of State any information as to whether Members of Parliament in Egypt held a meeting?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIPS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)

Mr. MANDER: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements are contemplated during the Recess for enabling Members of Parliament to go for a flight in the airship R100 or R101?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): My Noble Friend regrets that it will not be practicable to arrange for such a flight during the Recess.

Mr. MANDER: Has not this flight been promised month by month for a year past, and is it not about time some arrangements were made?

Mr. MONTAGUE: That is perfectly true, but the hon. Member knows that the airship is experimental, and that we have had a very unfortunate summer.

Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman expect the House to vote any more money for airships under circumstances of this kind?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not one of the airships mentioned in the question arrived in Canada?

Mr. MONTAGUE: That is perfectly true.

Mr. THORNE: When arrangements are made for Members of this House to have a ride in this airship, will they be called upon to pay their own expenses? If not, why not? No more hidden purposes !

An HON. MEMBER: No more bribery.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY.

Mr. HANNON: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make a state-
ment as to the activities upon which the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority has been engaged since its inception; the expenditure involved in the maintenance of this body during the 12 months ended 30th June last; and if he is satisfied that the continuance of the authority is necessary in view of the operations carried on by the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Annual Reports made by the Joint Authority and printed as appendices to the Annual Reports of the Electricity Commissioners, contain a full record of the activities of the Authority. The administrative expenses of the Joint Authority (i.e. other than expenses in connection with the supply of electricity) for the year ending 31st March, 1930, amounted to about £17,500. With regard to the last part of the question, while the Act of 1926 has undoubtedly resulted in an alteration in the scope and amount of the work of the Authority, useful duties remain to be discharged by the Authority in connection with distribution. The Authority will in 1971 become the owner of all the Company undertakings in London.

Mr. HANNON: In view of the amount of money expended by this authority, and the comparatively small amount of work done, does the Minister feel justified in continuing its operations?

Mr. MORRISON: In any case the authority is established by law, and is performing useful functions, and I do not see how its position can be altered in the absence of general legislation at any time covering electricity supply.

Mr. HANNON: But if there is a useless institution, is not this the time to dispense with it?

Mr. MORRISON: In so far as its functions are limited they were possibly limited as a consequence of the Act of 1926, and more particularly they have been limited by the action of past Governments in their desire to protect the interests of private companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRAFFIC ACT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11 and 12.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether there will be any special
organisation during the forthcoming bank holiday week-end to enforce the new road transport rules;
(2) whether the speed limit for motor vehicles will be in force during the forthcoming holiday period?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on Wednesday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division (Colonel Howard-Bury) as to the arrangements to be made for bringing the provisions of the Road Traffic Act into force. I then pointed out that it would not be possible to bring any part of it into operation before 1st November. The existing law, including the general speed limit of 20 miles an hour, will therefore remain in force during the forthcoming holiday period.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

MR. SNOWDEN'S STATEMENT.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make an announcement on the subject of the Government's agricultural policy?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I must apologise to the House for the length of the reply to this Question, but the importance of the matter will, I think, be a sufficient justification.
In view of the depression which exists in certain branches of the agricultural industry, and the urgent need for reform in methods both of marketing and production in order to take advantage of our valuable home market, the Government have given anxious consideration to the agricultural problem, with especial regard to the desirability of increasing employment on the land with good standards of living, recognising that this can only be assured through prosperity in the industry.
Proposals will be submitted for making land more freely available for small cultivators and affording them adequate security of tenure. Local authorities will be stimulated to meet the large and unsatisfied demand for small holdings,
cottage holdings and allotments. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture will be given powers to acquire and manage land for these purposes, so as to supplement, but in no way to supplant, local authorities that are active. Powers to provide cottage holdings will be extended to County Borough Councils, and these holdings will be made available for letting as well as sale and for a wider class of applicant.
A scheme will be undertaken whereby a contribution may be made to the mitigation of unemployment by the creation of a special class of allotments and of market garden and poultry holdings up to five acres for suitable unemployed workers.
An Agricultural Land Utilisation Corporation will be established to conduct, on the one hand, large-scale farming, managed on business principles, with the utmost possible application of improved methods and the best machinery, with the particular object of affording to agriculturists a practical training in business management; and on the other hand, additional Demonstration Farms of various types in different parts of the country, designed to secure the quicker and more general adoption of every agricultural improvement.
In Scotland, the Department of Agriculture will make every effort to increase the number of small holdings available. At the same time, investigations will be set on foot for improving certain large tracts of barren and moss land and for reclamation works. Arrangements are under consideration for the extension of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, to Scotland.
The critical position of cereal farmers demands the earliest possible attention. The question of the condition of this class of agriculturists in different parts of the Empire will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, with special reference to Bulk Purchase, Import Boards and Stabilisation of Prices. In view of this, and of the possibility that the conclusions of the Conference on this matter may materially change the practical problem of dealing with cereal farming, the Government is not in a position at present to formulate comprehensive proposals for this part of the
agricultural situation beyond the plans outlined in this statement for improved methods of cultivation, the better organisation and marketing of produce, education and research, and improved credit facilities. But as soon as the conclusions of the Imperial Conference are known, the Government will undertake whatever practicable steps can be devised to put cereal growing in this country on an economic foundation.
It is an urgent necessity to give our home producers opportunities of orderly and better marketing in our industrial market. A Bill is being introduced forthwith for purposes of criticism and comment, which offers certain powers to large-scale commodity organisations initiated by producers themselves for the marketing of home-produced agricultural products, and protects such organisations from the disruptive action of minorities. There are precedents for legislation of a similar kind in overseas parts of the Empire. The Bill contemplates organisations of two distinct types, though combinations of both are possible. First, there is the older and better-known pool type, which is well adapted for products in respect of which we are largely self-supporting, and of which the market may be disturbed by recurring surpluses. The Bill also provides for organisations of the regulatory type, which are concerned more with the craft of marketing than with the physical control and handling of the product, and which, after the manner of a board of directors, would formulate a coherent marketing policy for the home product and carry it into effect. Financial assistance by way of both long and short term loans will be available for these commodity marketing boards. Care has been taken to provide safeguards for the great body of consumers and for other affected interests.
The erection of publicly-owned abattoirs by local authorities for the centralised slaughtering of livestock will be encouraged.
The development of agricultural education will also form an important part of our policy. An Agricultural Research Council is being constituted to secure improved co-ordination and extension of agricultural research throughout the United Kingdom. In view of the great losses incurred through disease, among
the first subjects to receive attention will be contagious abortion, tuberculosis, and swine fever.
Legislation will be introduced to regulate the use and import of bulls, with a view to improving the standard of our livestock.
Apart from the increased provision for access to land for their own cultivation that the policy affords to suitable workers, it is important that agricultural workers should share in any added prosperity which may accrue to the industry, and the working of the existing machinery for regulating wages will be carefully watched with this object in view.
The present Housing Bill contains provisions which should mitigate the evil of the tied cottage, to which we attach great importance, and it is the intention of the Government to take special steps to stimulate the provision of improved housing in rural areas under the powers therein provided. Further, a Committee which is to be appointed to consider the Rent Restriction Act will include within its purview the special position of the "tied cottage," with a view to providing a remedy against any unfair use of this system.
The Government is convinced that by a sustained and well-directed effort designed to evoke the co-operation of the industry itself it should be possible to arrest the decline of employment on the land and to foster, by taking advantage of modern developments and facilities, specialised and improved methods of production which should result in a great increase in our home-produced food supplies and bring back prosperity to our countryside. We believe that our proposals will have the effect of inspiring in all sections of the farming community that confidence which is so essential to its progress and welfare, and will promote the sound development of our great agricultural industry.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how many new officials it is estimated will have to be set up, and will he also tell us what is the position of the co-operative movement in connection with this great programme?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not see very much relevance to the statement I have read in the questions of the right hon.
Gentleman who, as he represents Woolwich, has, I suppose, a very special interest in it. I do not anticipate that there will be a very great increase in the number of officials who will administer these new plans, but I am sure, whatever number may be necessary, they will do a great deal more than repay their extra cost. In regard to the second question, I do not think it calls for a reply.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that throughout the whole of this long statement there is not one grain of hope of immediate relief for cereal agriculture? All that we can hope for from the statement is further discussion at a very late period, but absolutely no immediate help for those who are undoubtedly in the most dire necessity.

Mr. GRANVILLE: Is it the intention of the Government to extend unemployment insurance to agricultural workers?

Mr. SNOWDEN: We are giving consideration to that subject, but at the moment I am not able to make any announcement upon it. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member above the Gangway, this is, of course, a very long statement and I cannot expect that its full import can have been grasped. I certainly would suggest that any comments or criticisms might wait until hon. Members have had an opportunity of studying it.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: As a farmer, I beg to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait for the result before he offers thanks.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: I express my appreciation—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for that.

Mr. FOOT: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make clear whether the statement he has read is a call to battle or a swan song?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In the long list of platitudes that has been read to the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether one point has not been omitted, as it is vital—

Mr. SPEAKER: The statement was certainly a very long one, but I do not think we can allow a debate on it.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The question which I submit has been omitted—and I want to ask whether it is to be considered—is the enormous importance of the training of veterinary surgeons.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, in regard to smaller agricultural and horticultural production, that what the industry is suffering from is the dumping of the surplus products of foreign markets? Is there anything in his statement which will deal with that?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There is no direct reference to this subject, but there is a good deal in the statement which will in an indirect way deal with that problem by improving the methods of production in this country and thereby improving the competitive position of British agriculture. This will also be assisted by the proposals for marketing in the Bill which has just been introduced.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, are we to understand that the matter concerning unemployment insurance for agricultural workers is still under consideration; and will the Departmental Committee which is looking into the whole question of unemployment insurance also include the rural districts within its scope?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know to what the hon. and gallant Member refers concerning a departmental committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The three-party committee.

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I do not suppose that its terms of reference will cover the question of the insurance of agricultural workers. All that I can say, is to repeat what I have said, in reply to the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that at the present time I have nothing to say with regard to that matter.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted considerable advantages to be granted to new allotment holders and smallholders, and I should like to ask whether these advantages will be extended to the
present allotment holders and smallholders, and, if not, will it not put the latter at a disadvantage in competition?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think so. It is, of course, impossible in reply to questions, to give an answer to everything that enters into the imagination or the mind of hon. Members, but the purpose of our proposals with regard to allotments, a matter in which I am personally very deeply interested—I should like to see every encouragement given to the extension of allotments—is to encourage the use of allotments.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman cultivate an allotment of his own during the Recess?

HOME-GROWN PRODUCE (PRICES).

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 13.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the plight of the producers of soft fruit, in Norfolk and elsewhere, in regard to uneconomic prices; and whether he will introduce legislation to guarantee an adequate price for all Home-grown produce, together with a living wage for the land worker?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I am aware that in many cases growers of soft fruit in this country have been receiving unremunerative prices for their produce. I am afraid I cannot undertake to implement legislation to guarantee an adequate price for all home-grown produce, but proposals designed to secure the improvement of the condition of agriculture, with particular reference to the needs of the land worker as well as the farmer, are being announced to-day.

Mr. TAYLOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consent to consultations taking place between the Ministry and representatives of the industry in Norfolk with a view to discussing the marketing possibility?

Dr. ADDISON: I should be delighted to enter into any such consultation.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very heavy crop this year, and in some cases if this dumping continues the fruit will not be picked, and that is not economical?

Dr. ADDISON: I quite agree that there is a very heavy crop this year, but the unremunerative price is not due to dumping because the imports are less than they were last year. It is due to the fact that the growers are utterly disorganised, and do not get a fair price for their products.

Viscount ELMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a difference of 39s. per ton between the price which the growers get and the price which we have to pay?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, that is the essential weakness of the whole situation with which we have to deal.

Mr. SMITHERS: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to call a conference of the Norfolk growers, will he also remember the Kent growers?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not want to deal with this matter piecemeal, and I shall be very glad to consult the growers.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: In reference to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that there is less dumping this year than last year does he include the amount delivered direct from the docks to the wholesale dealers?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not know what the hon. Member means by dumping, but I do not think there are any bounty-fed imports. If the hon. Member means imports, my information is that up to the present they are somewhat less than they were last year.

Sir J. LAMB: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see the ineffectiveness of dealing with different districts, and will he consult with the national representatives?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not know who the hon. Member means by national representatives.

Sir J. LAMB: I mean the farmers and the fruit growers.

Dr. ADDISON: I have already said so.

An Hon. Member: Is it not obvious that a smaller import will cause a very bad crisis because the quantity we grow at home will not be sufficient for our own use?

Dr. ADDISON: I am quite certain that the difficulty is not due to importation, but to the atrocious disparity between the price the producer gets and the price which the consumer pays.

ENCLOSURE ACTS (ERITH AND CRAYFORD).

Mr. MILLS: 14.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department have any maps in their possession relating to the period of the Enclosure Act affecting the area of Erith, Crayford and Belvedere.

Dr. ADDISON: My Department has no such maps as my hon. Friend mentions in his possession. Two Enclosure Acts were passed in 1812 as regards Erith and Crayford, respectively. A copy of the award made under the Crayford Enclosure Act is deposited with the Clerk of the Peace for Kent at Sessions House, Maidstone, and probably a copy of the relative map will be found with it. The whereabouts of the award made under the Erith Enclosure Act it not, however, known to my Department. Belvedere formed part of the Parish of Erith, and no separate award or map appears to have been made for it.

BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 15.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the intention of the British delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September to take such steps as may be necessary to propose that the annual report of the International Bank should be forwarded to the appropriate organ of the League of Nations for consideration, in order that contact between the two bodies may be maintained?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question put by him on the same matter on the 27th May last.

Mr. MANDER: My question was quite different. I asked whether the British delegation at Geneva will take such opportunities as present themselves of raising this matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I anticipated that at the time I gave the hon. Member the answer, and I said that I thought it
would be premature at the present time to lay down generally the matters for discussion at Geneva.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the report be made available to Members of this House?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot say.

EAST AFRICA (JOINT COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities will be provided for representative Natives or their spokesmen to visit this country for the purpose of giving evidence before the Committee on Closer Union in East Africa?

The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I would refer my hon. and gallant friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) on the 30th July, of which I am sending him a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he gave that reply, and also his replies to some supplementary questions, he did not give the House anything definite as to whether the representatives of the natives would be helped, assisted or facilitated in coming over to this country?

Dr. SHIELS: I would like to say that I am in full sympathy with the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view, and I can assure him that all steps will be taken to see that the rights of the natives in those territories are put forward.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged.

MALAYA (INDIAN LABOURERS).

Major POLE: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the rubber planters in Malaya have forwarded a request to the government in Malaya to amend the existing legislation governing the wage rates of Indian labourers so as to enable them to reduce the rates of pay on the estates; and whether the said gov-
ernment have under consideration any such alteration of the present wage legislation?

Dr. SHIELS: My noble Friend has no information that such a request has been received by the Malayan Governments or that they are considering the matter, but he will make inquiries.

Major POLE: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know when he receives the information?

Dr. SHIELS: Certainly.

Mr. WELLOCK: Will the Under-Secretary keep his eye on the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir; I have that in mind.

HADRIAN'S WALL.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: 20.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the exact state of negotiations for the preservation of the Roman Wall pending the introduction of legislation; and whether there is any definite undertaking that the wall and vallum will be protected from encroachment pending legislation?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): As I have already informed the House, negotiations have been proceeding in accordance with a decision of the Cabinet, with the view to limiting the area within which quarrying is to be allowed, and, from a letter which I have received from the quarry owner, I anticipate to a successful issue. No quarrying has yet begun on the site and there will be no interference at any time with the wall or the vallum. If, as I hope, the legislation contemplated is carried through without delay, the surroundings of the wall as a whole can be adequately protected for the future.

BOTANICAL GARDENS (REGENT'S PARK).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 21.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the desire of the public that the site of the Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park, should be kept as an open space for the enjoyment of the public at the termination of the present lease next year; and whether he can
assure the House that no new buildings will be erected on the site until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am aware of and appreciate the general desire that this site shall be used for the benefit of the public, and I am quite prepared to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member. To remove any misconception I should like to say that I know of no proposal to clear away the ornamental water or to interfere with the general appearance of the gardens.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 22.
asked the Minister of Health, whether, in view of the decision of the Scottish Court of Session on the 14th instant regarding the interpretation of Section 5 (a) of the Pensions Act, 1925, so far as it affects voluntary contributors under Section 13 (1) of the Act, he will now be prepared to reconsider all those cases where widows have been declined pension on the grounds that at the date of death 104 weeks had not elapsed and 104 contributions had not been paid?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I am afraid I can do no more than refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Banff on the 10th July on this subject.

Mr. MILLS: In view of the large number of cases which occur and which disclose real hardship, is the Minister of Health prepared to reduce the amount of the contributions to an even number instead of 100?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There is not a large number of these cases that arise. The point is that there happens to be a slight difference in the law.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Does he mean the 10th July this year?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, the 10th of July this year.

ELECTORAL LAW.

Mr. MANDER: 24.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will, in view of the measure of agreement dis-
closed in the report of the Ullswater Committee, give consideration during the recess to the advisability of introducing legislation next Session on electoral reform, including the alternative vote, reduction of election expenses, party election expenditure, speakers' expenses, motor-cars, plural voting, half-yearly registers, returning officers' deposits, double-member constituencies, and election petitions.

Mr. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend is not able, at this time, to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the advisability of passing such legislation, if necessary, under the Parliament Act during the next two or three years?

Mr. SNOWDEN: This matter will receive consideration. The report is expected to be published in a few days. It is a very important matter, and to use the usual phrase, I am sure that all relevant matters will be taken into consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman not hold out any hope to the Liberal party just before the Recess?

PALESTINE (McMAHON CORRESPONDENCE).

Mr. COCKS: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the publication of the McMahon-Husein correspondence?

Dr. SHIELS: His Majesty's Government have been impressed by the feeling shown in the House of Commons on various occasions, and especially in the debate on the Adjournment on the 7th May, with regard to the correspondence which took place in 1915–16 between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif Husein of Mecca. They have, therefore, thought it necessary to re-examine this correspondence fully in the light of the history of the period and the interpretations which have been put upon it.
There are still valid reasons, entirely unconnected with the question of Palestine, which render it in the highest degree undesirable in the public interest
to publish the correspondence. These reasons may be expected to retain their force for many years to come.
There are not sufficient grounds for holding that by this correspondence His Majesty's Government intended to pledge themselves, or did, in fact, pledge themselves, to the inclusion of Palestine in the projected Arab State. Sir H. McMahon has himself denied that this was his intention. The ambiguous and inconclusive nature of the correspondence may well, however, have left an impression among those who were aware of the correspondence that His Majesty's Government had such an intention.

Mr. COCKS: Could the Under-Secretary take into consideration the possibility of publishing that part of the correspondence which refers to Palestine and the Arab State?

Dr. SHIELS: I think my hon. Friend will be aware that it is impossible to carry out a request of that kind, because, in a case like this, you cannot publish partial correspondence; you must either publish the whole or none.

Mr. McSHANE: With regard to the latter part of the Under-Secretary's statement, is not this precisely what happened? I have here paragraph (1) of the second letter of General McMahon, in which he guarantees to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs; and would it not be better, therefore, that at any rate the relevant parts of the letters should be published, because very soon this question has got to come before the House for settlement?

Dr. SHIELS: All these points have been taken into consideration. The main grievance that was expressed in the debate to which I have referred in my reply was that this Government had adopted a continuity of policy without themselves making a full investigation into the subject; and, in response to the request that was then made, the whole subject has been very carefully gone into again. It has taken a lot of time and trouble, and all these facts which my hon. Friend points out have been taken into consideration. I am afraid that I cannot promise that anything more may be done than is expressed in the reply which I have given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this day at Four or half-past Four o'clock, and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Bill [Lords],

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

River Lee (Flood Relief, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

Leicester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Boston Corporation Bill [Lords],

London United Tramways Bill [Lords],

Southport Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Housing (No. 2) Bill,

That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Housing (No. 2) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; they agree to the Amendment last made by the Commons in lieu of certain of the Lords Amendments, without Amendment.

Housing (Scotland) Bill,

That they agree to the Amendment last made by the Commons to the Housing (Scotland) Bill in lieu of one of the Lords Amendments, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments, Lords Amendments in lieu of Commons Amendments disagreed to by the Lords, and Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments considered.

Message from the Lords:

The Lords agree to the second Amendment made by the Commons in page 5, line 42, but propose to amend it as follows:—

After the word "and" insert "county".

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment."
I am glad to be able to say that I advise the House to agree with all the Amendments on the special Paper. They have been the subject of careful and friendly negotiations and I am happy to say that there is no difference of opinion as far as this House and the other place are concerned with regard to any of these Amendments. I hope that my statement will facilitate the proceedings. There are certain drafting Amendments, and there is also a series of Amendments beginning at page 16 about which I shall have to say a few words. Apart from those Amendments I can assure the House that the Amendments are only drafting Amendments and I shall formally move them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the first Amendment made by the Commons in page 12, line 34, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 12, line 34, leave out "or".

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 16, line 30, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 16, line 30, leave out "limitations prescribed by section twenty-one" and insert "provisions of this Part".

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."
This Amendment and the two which follow, including the long new Clause on pages 1 and 2, belong to one another. The first two Amendments are purely verbal in order to lead the way to the long Amendment beginning at the bottom of page 1. The point is, that in the other place, before the Bill came down here, there was a limit of a halfpenny rate placed upon the expenditure of Catchment Area Boards; and in our opinion and in the opinion of the Committee that made the working of the Bill, for all practical purposes, impossible. Therefore, the two particular Subsections were removed by the Committee upstairs, and their action was approved by the House on Report. Then we accepted an alternative method of limiting the expenditure by inserting a new Clause, Clause 56, by which, if the expenditure proposed to be incurred exceeded 2d. on the rates, there was to be a special inquiry before it could be sanctioned. Their Lordships disagreed with that Amendment, and the one on the Paper is an agreed substitute. What it amounts to is, that where the proposed expenditure exceeds 2d. on the rates, the expenditure has not to be incurred unless it receives the approval of a majority of the county council or county borough representatives on the catchment area board. I am assured that that exposes us to no risk of following up any good scheme because it is left entirely to the discretion of the catchment area board.
If the majority of the representatives of the boroughs and county councils of that Board disagree with the scheme it is evident that it will not be proceeded with. This makes it certain that where the expenditure is greater than that
amount, they will have to secure the approval of the majority, which is a reasonable proposition. But there is a very important and vital proviso, which their lordships did not at first contemplate but which they have inserted, with regard to representation, and that proviso is in page 2. It secures that the expenditure of a twopenny rate is altogether independent of any expenditure which may be incurred to provide interest and sinking fund on loans. A large scheme might be paralysed if this were not done. It is therefore necessary to provide a safeguard, and the proviso excludes those payments from the proposed limitation.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) who took such a very active part in our proceedings in Committee is, I dare say—and I see that he is on the alert—anxious to see to what extent this will react upon the internal drainage boards. I can assure him that it will be the purpose of the Ministry, and, I do not doubt, of the catchment area boards, to secure that this limitation which applies to the general rate of the catchment hoard, shall not by itself lead to any considerable charges which otherwise would fairly be levied upon the internal drainage districts. That is not intended to be the effect of it. I am sure that all parties will be interested to see that it is not so. At the same time, the hon. Member is well aware that under Clause 21, in page 19, it is provided that an internal drainage district shall only have levied upon it a rate which is considered to be fair. We have had long discussions upon that point. It is obvious that it would not be fair to take advantage of this particular provision in order thereby to increase the charge upon a smaller portion of the area. There are other safeguards for the internal drainage districts, and I am sure that the hon. Member need have no anxiety on this account.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I presume that as the Minister has discussed the new Clause I shall be in order in discussing it now, rather than later.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must discuss the Amendment.

Sir J. LAMB: I did not know whether you would rule me out of order if I discussed the Clause now.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is an inconvenient time to discuss the Clause when considering Lords Amendments.

Sir J. LAMB: Then I will follow the remarks made by the Minister. I do not propose to ask the House to divide against the new Clause, but I do wish to protest against it as it comes from the other place for the reason that it is inadequate to achieve the avowed object which it has in view, namely, to act as a limitation upon excessive expenditure. The sum of 2d. is mentioned. I and several of my hon. Friends have attempted to reduce that sum and to put in the sum of 1d. The sum of 2d. is an inadequate safeguard against the excessive expenditure which is feared by the local authorities and agriculturists. Moreover, the 2d. is not the limit because, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the 2d. is to be the annual increased charge and is not to have relation to the loan charges and past expenditure.
What provision has been made in regard to the maintenance charges for past work? The cost of maintenance in addition to the 2d. and the loan charges may come as a very heavy expenditure ultimately upon the counties. The proposal that has been made is not a safeguard against the extravagance which many of us feel. Everyone will agree with me that to-day economy is the crying need of the country, and although there are the possibilities of great good in this Bill I am confident that owing to the charges there is great danger of the advantages in the Bill being bought at far too high a price. The 2d. is not sufficient to justify the assumption of certain hon. Members opposite that it is an adequate safeguard against the extravagance which we in the industry fear.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister on his having met the points that I have previously raised and to ask him to what extent the acceptance of this Amendment will act detrimentally to the interests of agriculture, through the instrumentality of the precepts which will be made upon the internal drainage boards. I attach very considerable importance to this Amendment. The main purpose of the Bill was to assist agriculture and, as the Minister knows, the in-
dustry of agriculture looked with some doubts upon the Bill, and those doubts were almost mainly financial. The industry felt that the time was not opportune to place increased burdens upon agriculture. The only increased burden that can be put upon the industry of agriculture by this Bill in the precept which will be made upon the internal district drainage boards. It has been thought that I am merely representing some particular area of the Fen country, but I want to say very definitely that there are hundreds of internal drainage boards and that hundreds of internal drainage boards will be set up by the Bill, therefore in speaking on behalf of the internal drainage boards I am speaking on behalf of the whole country as well as the particular district for which it is assumed that I have been speaking.
12 n.
The Amendment by limiting the rate to 2d. may possibly add a further financial burden to agriculture. The reason for my fear will be obvious when we consider the financial provisions of the Bill. The revenue to meet the expenditure of a catchment board is to be obtained from three sources, the State grant, the precept upon the county and town councils and the precept upon the internal drainage boards. The State grant, whether by block grant or percentage grant, will be a limited one. The precept upon the county councils and the town councils is to be made upon the general rate of the county or the municipality. It will be remembered that agricultural land is de-rated, therefore the precept that is made upon the county councils and the town councils will not be borne by agricultural land. The only way in which agriculture will be affected financially in this Bill and by which a burden can be placed upon agriculture is through the precept which will be made upon the internal district. I think we may call that precept the agricultural rate. The expenses of the catchment boards which are not borne by the Government grant will be borne by the precept upon the county and town councils and the agricultural rate through the internal districts. In the Bill this balance is to be adjusted as between the county and town rates and the agricultural rate as is considered fair, but our fear is that
the interpretation of the word "fair" may be interfered with by the Amendment.
Let me put to the House my fear of what may happen. I will assume, as an example, that a catchment board undertakes expenditure of £100,000, and the State comes in with a 50 per cent. grant. That will leave £50,000 to be found and to be fairly distributed between the town and county rates and the agricultural rate. Assuming that £25,000 to each of these is considered fair. At the end of a certain time, and this always happens in these large drainage schemes, instead of the expenditure being limited to £100,000 it amounts to £120,000. The State will give their 50 per cent. grant, which will amount to £60,000, but there will be an additional £10,000 to be found, because the £25,000 to be borne by the town and county rates is up to the 2d. prescribed in the Bill. Who is to find the additional £10,000? it will be the person who is unlimited in his liability, and that is the agricultural ratepayer, through the internal districts. It is because I have that fear that I am raising the point now.
The Bill came to this House from the other place with the town and country contribution limited, and with the agricultural contribution unlimited. When we recollect that the catchment board is represented by two-thirds town and county representatives and only one-third agricultural representatives, it will be obvious to the House that the agricultural area may be exploited by the catchment board. I took the only line I thought possible to obtain three things, either that if you have a limit to the town and county rate you should also in fairness and justice have a limit applied to the agricultural rate through the internal district board, or else you should give equal representation on the catchment board; or, if you do not obtain these two things, then remove the limit on the one hand, and do not leave agriculture penalised with an unlimited liability, when the town and county have a limited liability. I failed in the first two concessions, but the second concession was passed. This Bill came to the Third Reading with the elimination—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into a Third Reading debate on the Lords Amendments.

Question, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 19, line 21, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 19, line 22, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)".

Question, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 19, line 26, but propose to insert the following sub-section in lieu, of the sub-sections so rest[...]red to the Bill:

"(2) The aggregate amount which may be demanded under this Part of this Act in any one financial year by a Catchment Board from the council of any county or county borough shall not, except with the consent of the majority of those members of the Catchment Board who are appointed by the councils of counties and county boroughs, exceed the estimated amount which would be produced by a rate of twopence in the pound levied on that part of the county or county borough which is within the catchment area:

Provided that where the Catchment Board has borrowed or is about to borrow any money in pursuance of this Act the foregoing provisions shall, if the said members or the majority thereof so resolve, have effect during the currency of the loan as if the said sum of twopence were increased by such amount as is specified in the resolution.

In this sub-section the expression 'financial year' means a year ending on the thirty-first day of March."

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist on its Amend-
ment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to ask whether in any way this new Amendment affects the drainage boards which are just outside the catchment area and in their present assessment are partly in the catchment area and partly outside. The second question is this: It is obvious that this whole scheme has meant that the catchment areas undertake the duties of sea defence. Will this limit of 2d. refer to any expense to which the catchment area may be pat for sea defence. If so, I want to put a third question—whether, in the case of any contribution made in excess of the 2d. in aid of a loan it is necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture or the Board of Trade to deal with the loan? While sea defence up-to-date is under the Board of Trade, land drainage is under the Ministry of Agriculture, and I think that the matter has never been cleared up either in Committee or on Report as to how the Board of Trade is interested in the transference of sea defence. I understand that this limit of 2d. will include the whole amount.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON: There is one question I should like to ask the Minister. On coming into existence of the internal drainage board, there will be a considerable number of loans to be taken over. As this 2d. rate is exclusive of sinking fund, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this will refer to past loans incurred before this Bill comes into operation, or will the interest on past loans be included in the limit of the 2d. rate?

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: In the counties and county boroughs, the ratepayers are to be congratulated on this Amendment, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), has pointed out, the Amendment does not go nearly far enough. The history of the Amendment is instructive. When the Clause went to another place, the Minister had unlimited power. It was modified very largely in the other place. The rate limit was inserted, and also the appeal to a tribunal. In Committee these safeguards have been eliminated. The Minister was strongly urged by some of
us to provide some substitute safeguard. I am not saying that he did not go some way to meet us by Clause 56. That Clause provided a limit of £50,000 and a 2d. rate, but it also provided that the ultimate voice in the matter should be with the Minister. Now we have this provision which, to my mind, is very much better, although it does not go nearly far enough. A very important point which we pressed in Committee, and which now appears in this Clause, is that the ultimate voice is left with the majority of the members of the catchment board, who come from the counties and the county boroughs. In other words, the majority of the representatives of those who find the money have the final voice in the matter. That is a very great improvement. The second paragraph in this Amendment may add very considerably to the 2d. rate. That, again, will depend on the representatives of the counties and the county boroughs. May I say that I congratulate the Minister on getting his Bill, not indeed on the merits of the Bill, but on his own merits in the conciliatory and humane way in which he has conducted the negotiations.

Mr. WELLS: I am one of those who have been interested in this Bill all through. I think this hardly goes far enough in regard to the question of interest on loans. I can quite understand my hon. Friend's fear, which many of us have had, as to the very heavy cost that will fall not only on local authorities but on agricultural areas as well. We have at least some ground of comfort in this limitation, and I hope that the local authorities will seize the opportunity and see that there is a limit to the expenditure on these great schemes for the drainage of land.

Dr. ADDISON: This Clause will not be retrospective in its effect. This particular Amendment re-enacts two provisions which were originally in Clause 23 which relates to the necessity of the publication of these Orders in newspapers so as to give a wider publicity to the schemes before the Minister deals with them. So far as the department is concerned, it is a departure from the usual procedure which was not contemplated, but the other place takes the view that this additional publicity is a safeguard. I do not think it is necessary because everything will be dealt with quite openly
in any case. At the same time I do not propose to ask the House to insist upon their Amendment.

Question, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 20, line 14, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 20, line 14, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)".

Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."—[Dr. Addison.]

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 23, line 4, for the following reason:

Because they consider it desirable to preserve the safeguard afforded by the requirements with respect to the publication and confirmation of orders.

Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."—[Dr. Addison.]

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the New Clause (Provision as to large schemes of Catchment Boards) for the following reason:

Because they consider that the limitation on the expenditure of Catchment Boards imposed by the new provision inserted in Clause 21 is sufficient.

Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."—[Dr. Addison.]

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the Amendments made by the Commons in page 65, line 37, for the following reason:

Because these Amendments are rendered unnecessary by the form of the Amendment inserted by the Commons in page 65, line 35.

Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed."—[Dr. Addison.]

Remaining Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I regret on the last day of the Session having to call the attention of the House to the question of the taxation of unemployment grants in certain cases by the Revenue authorities. Hon. Members will agree that since there have been so many conflicting opinions and impressions about this matter, and since the Revenue statements are so technical in character that it is often difficult for the ordinary citizen as well as the ordinary Member of this House really to understand the actual meaning of a word which may have a technical meaning, it is desirable that the facts which some of us have had brought before us should be cleared up and that we should get a plain statement from the Treasury as to the view, not only of the Treasury, but of the Government, as to grants made to local authorities for the purpose of accelerating employment. First of all, while I have had a number of complaints made to me, I realise that for the moment the authorities do not universally apply the taxation of grants to all cases. But since there has been a certain judgment, which I must not discuss, it is obvious that the issue may be so potentially big that if what I think is the interpretation of what has happened in certain cases of small local authorities in Scotland is right, we may find an entire revolution in the proceedings of the Revenue, after proceedings in the Appeal Court, with regard to the imposition of Income Tax on these grants, and a procedure may be carried out which was far from the mind of any hon. Member of this House.
The answers that I have received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seem to me to be somewhat inconsistent, and at the moment, as far as my knowledge is concerned, it is mainly, but not altogether, the smaller authorities that are involved. Let me come to another statement of facts. I think the whole House
will agree that Parliament never intended that these grants should be taxed. It was never intended that money paid to local authorities for assistance towards work being carried out, should have 20 per cent. paid back to the Income Tax authorities. I know that there is a dispute as to whether this is being done or not. I am not assuming that it is so. I am only putting it that there is that impression amongst certain authorities. If it is so, I contend that it ought not to be so. If it is not so, we shall be very glad to have the position stated clearly and simply, so that the whole country may know that it is not the policy of the Government to tax these grants.
The demands vary in character. In one case at least they affect undertakings of a non-revenue producing character—only in one case. In all the other cases they affect undertakings of a revenue-producing character. That is a technical description. As far as I have been able to sift the matter there is no statutory authority whatever for the distinction drawn between non-revenue producing undertakings and revenue producing works. The matter seems to rest either upon a, Treasury rule or a Treasury minute, and has the effect of preventing certain authorities from doing works. It is obvious that if a Treasury grant is given to those who are undertaking works of a non-revenue producing character on what are better terms than grants to undertakings of a revenue producing character, it is easier to do the one than the other. It is in the main undertakings of a revenue producing character that are affected by these demands.
In addition to this distinction between revenue producing and non-revenue producing works, there is another distinction. There is a distinction drawn between grants made by the Unemployment Grants Committee which are of a capital nature and those which are by way of a calculation of interest paid annually, and it is in the latter case that the difficulty arises. Although interest is paid annually, the gift is really understood by the Unemployment Grants Committee to be of a capital nature. It is only a method of calculation whereby the interest is paid annually. There is a variegated nature in the Revenue demands. In some cases they demand, as they are entitled, a return of Income Tax on interest which has been deducted by
them when they are paying stockholders the annual returns on their loans. In same cases this is done with a distinction. It may mean trouble, as in the case where the authorities argue that a tax is levied on the actual grant paid in the shape of annual interest towards the scheme. Let me read to the House one or two extracts to show what confusion arises from the answers that I have received from Ministers. On 23rd June the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
Income Tax law requires that annual grants of a revenue character made to local authorities or other bodies for the purposes of their trading undertakings should be taken into account in the same way as other revenue receipts in computing the profits of those undertakings for Income Tax purposes. This question in relation to unemployment grants has been before the Board of Inland Revenue on several occasions from 1923 onwards and they have always taken this view which is based on judicial decisions of long standing.
There were certain supplementary questions. The Minister admitted that there had been some difficulty about it. He went on to say what appeared to me to be inconsistent:
I may say that the point at issue is this, that upon the whole interest of the loan the Income Tax is deducted, but it is not the Income Tax of the local authorities but the Income Tax of the stockholders. What the right hon. Gentleman appears to have in his mind is this, that the local authority, having deducted the whole of the Income Tax upon the interest paid to these stockholders, should be able to keep that part which is due to the Inland Revenue, and, instead of the local authority getting less Income Tax, if they were permitted to keep that part they would be getting considerably more than 20 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1930; cols. 799 and 800; Vol. 240.]
I have no complaint if and when such demands are made. It must be obvious that if the local authority does deduct Income Tax from interest paid to stockholders, that is the property of the Inland Revenue and ought to be returned. My complaint is that in certain cases the tax is actually being levied on the grant. Whatever legal decision may be given in favour of the Treasury in the matter, the House, I am sure, never meant that to take place. By way of proof, may I be allowed to refer to an answer given to me by the Minister of Labour? I asked for a return of all the circulars issued in relation to unemployment grants. I have received them all. I then asked whether in the negotiations with local authorities
it had been made clear that there would be a deduction of Income Tax on these grants. The Minister of Labour replied that the answer to the question was in the negative.
So we have it from the Ministry itself that it was not intended by the Unemployment Grants Committee that Income Tax should be deducted. That is common ground between the Minister and myself. With regard to the big undertakings there had been a certain understanding arrived at between the municipal treasurers and the Treasury. I refer only to the third part of that. The grants are paid in three ways:—

(i) A percentage of the wages bill connected with either revenue producing or non-revenue producing schemes.
(ii) A percentage of the loan charges in respect of schemes of a non-revenue producing character.
(iii) A percentage of the interest charges only where the scheme is revenue producing.

The agreement arrived at is set out in the following terms:
Authorities will be called upon to account for tax on an amount of interest equal to the amount of the grant, the balance of interest paid being dealt with in the general interest settlement. As a general rule the grants will be included as a trading receipt of the undertaking for which they are made when calculating the liability to Income Tax in respect of the profits of the undertaking.
The decision of the Board was influenced by a certain case into the details of which I need not enter now. I asked the Scottish Office whether they had received any complaints from authorities in Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland informed me that he had received complaints from Alva, Ayr, the county of Lanark, the Water Board of Airdrie and the Convention of Royal Burghs—which is an organisation representing all the burghs of Scotland. I may add that recently when there was a meeting between the heads of the Government and the representatives of the local authorities in the Guildhall, London, Sir Henry Keith, a very important officer of the Convention of Royal Burghs, raised this point. This is not a matter affecting only one small authority. In some cases it affects large undertakings of a statutory character such as Dundee Harbour as well as smaller ones like Fraserburgh. English
members must not however regard this as purely a Scottish question. It so happens that the case which is now being fought out and which is under notice of appeal, is the case of the Seaham Harbour Dock Company—an English case arising in the Prime Minister's own constituency, so that this really is a matter of great importance for Members from all parts of Great Britain.
My argument is that if the particular grants to revenue producing undertakings were not paid as they are now paid, by way of percentage on interest annually, this question would not arise. Obviously a lump sum would go into the capital account of the undertaking and could not be reckoned as annual profit for the purposes of Income Tax. In my researches into Unemployment Grants circulars I have found, from Circular 16 that there are cases where the period of assistance does not exceed seven years and where the Committee may, at their discretion, if so desired, commute the annual interest payments for a single lump sum representing the present value of the whole of the interest payments. It is actually contemplated in the circular of the Unemployment Grants Committee that some of these grants which, according to our contention, are in the nature of capital grants may be commuted in the way I have described. Therefore it seems to me that we are on strong ground in arguing that these grants should not be reckoned as annual payments at all. This is simply a method of calculating the lump sum and for convenience the payments are made by way of annual percentage.
I put these five questions to the Minister. First, are the revenue departments construing the Acts in these cases in the manner which Parliament designed? Second, is it the Inland Revenue contention that all unemployment grants are taxable on the standard rate? Third, do the demands impose tax on the grants, or on the moneys deducted by the authorities for Income Tax from sums paid to stockholders? Fourth, was it ever contemplated by those who negotiated the unemployment grants that they were liable to Income Tax? Fifth, is it the policy of the Government and of this House that such grants should be taxed? These are questions which go to the root of the matter and I hope that we shall
be able to get a clear answer to them. As regards actual cases, perhaps the House will allow me to read a sentence from the Secretary of the Seaham Harbour Dock Company which puts the matter very clearly.
The outstanding fact is that the Government asked the Dock Company and other bodies of the same character to proceed with work before it was absolutely necessary in order to relieve unemployment, and they made a grant towards expenditure to be used for purposes of wages. The Seaham Harbour Dock Company received £7,500 against an expenditure of about £155,000. Having spent this sum upon wages another Government Department comes forward and demands £1,500 out of the grant on the ground that it is income and is subject to tax.
I have already given the Financial Secretary the names of other authorities concerned and he will have had time to go into the details from the Scottish point of view. The burgh of Alva received an unemployment grant with regard to a certain gasworks which is a revenue-producing undertaking and they complain that they are actually being taxed not on the sums of money which they retained as Income Tax deduction when paying interest to stockholders but on the grant itself. They say,
The town council received some years ago an unemployment grant in connection with the erection of vertical retorts at their gasworks. The grant was 50 per cent. for 15 years of the interest on the expenditure. This was agreed to as being £9,261 13s. 2d. and the grant was fixed at the yearly sum of £221 7s.
May I again point out here that if the sum had been paid as a capital sum this question could never arise. Their statement proceeds:
The Inspector of Taxes at Dunfermline District has now made a claim for Income Tax at 4s. in the £ on the grant of £221 for the years 1928–29 and 1929–30 and appeals have been lodged against these assessments.
The statement goes on:
The loan that was got to meet the cost of erecting retorts was £9,500, and that sum is being repaid by 20 yearly instalments of £475 each.
When the Minister gave me the answer that they were not taxing the grants, but the income on stockholders' interest, I wired the Town Clerk, as I thought I would have to raise the matter on the Adjournment, in the following terms:
Are revenue authorities deducting tax at the full rate on grants paid you by grants
committed or on amount deducted by you as tax from payments to stockholders.
I received the following answer:
Wire received. Revenue authorities seek to deduct tax at full rates an sums received from grants committee.
I have since received from the Town Clerk an abstract of the accounts and I find on page 25 the following figures:



£
s.
d.


"Balance brought down from Revenue Account for current year
2,534
8
10½


Bad Debts recovered during year
28
12
9


Unemployment Grant (including sum due at 15th May, 1929)
221
7
0


Showroom
18
10
7½


Total receipts
2,802
19
3


It is on that sum of £2,802 that tax is being levied, and my contention is that these figures prove clearly that the tax is not being levied, as was suggested, on the sums deducted from the payments to the stockholders, but is actually being levied on these grants, which are being treated as profits of the year to the undertaking. Let me turn to another case of an undertaking which is of a non-revenue-producing character. The Financial Secretary may not be aware that statutory water boards in Scotland have their grants given to them by the Unemployment Grants Committee not as revenue-producing undertakings, but as non-revenue-producing undertakings, and the complaint of the Water Board of Airdrie to which I would draw attention is as follows:
My Board have been objecting to the claims made by the Inland Revenue for some time and we obtained the assistance of Sir Henry Keith to call attention to the subject at the Conference in the Guildhall on 17th inst. In our case the grants were for the years 1924–5 to 1926–7, and the claim was not made or intimation received until the 17th December, 1929,
which is, of course, nearly five years after the original grant was made. I will read a copy of a letter sent to the inspector of taxes:
I beg to enclose herewith the undermentioned assessment notices dated 17th ultimo (C2) for Income Tax in respect of interest paid out of Unemployment Grants:

(1)…. on £402, £90 9s.;
(2)…. on £1,222, £244 8s.;
(3)…. on £688, £138 12s."

The total is £473 9s. In that case it seems obvious that the demand is being made for a tax on the actual grant and not, as suggested by the Treasury, for the Treasury's own money. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) put a question on Wednesday asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether some decision will be announced soon; and whether, in view of the uncertainty prevailing as to whether future grants will be made subject to such deduction, he is in a position to make any further statement on the subject?
The answer was as follows:
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I have explained in previous answers what I am advised, is the liability under the Income Tax law in this respect, and I see no ground for proposing any modification of the existing statutory provisions. This view of the legal position has recently been confirmed by the High Court in a case which is now under appeal to the Court of Appeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1930; col. 523; Vol. 242.]
That seems as if the Treasury were taking a purely legalistic view of the matter, and I raise it so that the Minister may have a full chance of making this perfectly clear to Members, to the authorities and to the country. Only this week I have received a batch of figures and facts, which I have not yet had time thoroughly to analyse, from a certain company in the North of Scotland. I have also received letters from other authorities since I first raised this question in the House, so that it shows there is at least very grave misunderstanding on the part of the smaller authorities, and the reason why the larger authorities are not clamant is because, in making up their accounts, they have a very different way of showing these sums, into which I need not go.
May I once more say that if the Treasury hold that the actual grants given are liable to Income Tax, they may be legally right—that remains to be proved—but I am quite sure they are morally wrong, because it was never understood, either by the Unemployment Grants Committee, by the Department of the Minister, by the local authorities, or by anybody else, when they entered into negotiations to accelerate works in order that the unemployed might get work, that such a deduction would be made. I shall be very happy if, when the Financial Secretary has concluded his statement in
reply, it is shown that these authorities are under a complete misapprehension and that it is not the policy of the Government to levy the full rate of Income Tax on unemployment grants.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I refer to the case of the Dundee Harbour Trust, which on a former occasion I submitted in question form to the Minister? The situation there in my view, with a Trust like the Dundee Harbour Trust, is on the basis of a non-profit making concern, and it should come within the category of those concerns to which the Secretary of State for Scotland made reference at his Conference concerning unemployment in Edinburgh. He there made the statement that these non-profit making concerns would be entirely immune from having Income Tax imposed upon such grants.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): That is entirely inaccurate.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I cannot settle that point for the present, but I submit that, like the water board to which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has referred, the harbour trust at Dundee is not a profit-making concern. They have had a very strong plea put forward by their clerk, in detailed form, to the Treasury, and they are anxiously awaiting the decision concerning this question. They would not, of course, make any protest on the score of any Income Tax required on interest derived from money provided by loan, but they are concerned about this deduction of Income Tax upon that which ought to be exclusively provided for the great purpose of the Government in regard to aiding unemployment, and on their behalf I feel anxious that we should get the matter cleared up satisfactorily for all concerned.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to reassure my hon. Friend that his apprehensions on this question are not founded in fact. It is a fact that the Revenue are charging tax on these accounts, and I submit that it is entirely wrong, because it is not in accordance with the promise made to the local authorities. Last year, the present Secretary of State for the Dominions, when he was Lord Privy Seal, received a deputation from the local authorities dealing
with the question of these works for the relief of unemployment, and he was specially questioned with regard to the percentage that would be allowed. He gave figures of the capital value of the grants that would be made. Alderman Davy, ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester, who was a member of the deputation, which I attended myself, said to the right hon. Gentleman:
I am not quite clear with regard to the 62 per cent. and the 48 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking to this deputation had remarked that the grants, so far as non-revenue earning schemes were concerned, worked out on a capital basis at 62 per cent., and at 48 per cent. for another kind of grant. The right hon. Gentleman said:
You may take it that it works out as follows: Non-revenue producing schemes involving the employment of transferred labour, approximately 62 per cent. of the entire cost.
Now we come to revenue-earning concerns, with which we are specially dealing this morning, and this is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
Revenue producing schemes, whether involving the employment of transferred labour or not, about 25 per cent. of the cost; and wages schemes, whether involving the employment of transferred labour or not, in the best circumstances about 60 per cent. of the cost. That is really reducing to a capital figure the amounts allocated covering the whole period. That is the object of reducing it.
I take it that the right hon. Gentleman meant to show to the local authorities, if they brought forward their schemes, how much actually they would receive by way of capital grant. If we turn to the terms and conditions laid down for these grants, we find that in the case of public utility companies they have to show to the Committee that they are not earning a dividend higher than a certain percentage. That was put in so that there would not be any profiteering out of any grants given for the employment of persons out of work: In the conditions under which grants may be made, it is stated:
In cases where dividends are not already limited by statute the Undertaking will normally be required to submit to such limitations as to the distribution of profits etc., during the period of assistance as may be necessary to secure in the opinion of the committee that no undue advantage is taken of such assistance. Each case will in this respect be considered separately upon its merits.
If there have been the deductions to which my hon. Friend has referred, I hope that this is not the method the revenue authorities are employing where these undertakings are earning more than would be a statutory profit if they were subject to Parliament in that matter. The proper way for that to be done would be by the Unemployment Grants Committee when making the grant to put this stipulation into any grant agreement they might make and thus see that there was no such thing as profiteering at the expense of the taxpayer. I do not think any hon. Member in this House would desire that any undertaking, whether municipally owned or a public utility undertaking, should get a profit out of this matter.
It must be borne in mind that these grants were made for two specific purposes: one, so that works which otherwise would not have been undertaken would be put into operation at once and thus provide relief for the unemployment problem, and the other and very important one for people having to manage these schemes of relief, to make up for a certain amount of inefficiency in the labour that is employed. We all realise that it is necessary, when you take men who have been engaged in other occupations to do work in which they are not usually employed, to recognise that they cannot be as efficient as men regularly carrying on that work. That was an argument put forward by a deputation with which I attended to the Lord Privy Seal, and it was made quite clear that it would be impossible for these works to be carried out on an economic basis. I maintain that the grant was made, not with the idea of giving profits to any one, but to balance what otherwise would be a loss to those authorities. If it is a fact that these deductions are being made, let me say to the Financial Secretary that he is going to strike a very heavy blow at anything being done on anything like a large scale for the relief of unemployment by local authorities and public utility concerns.
These revenue-earning projects are to my mind the schemes that should be encouraged more than any other. Non-revenue-earning schemes are absolutely
hopeless compared with those of revenue-earning concerns because they will not find continuing employment once they are completed. Anything that may be done in this way by any Departments of the Government will be striking at the efforts which are being put forward to try and reduce the unemployment figures, and, if it is a fact that these deductions have been made, either by someone in the Department who has not had proper instructions or by direct instructions from the Treasury, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see that it is stopped at once, for if it is carried on it will dishearten every local authority and public utility concern from undertaking any work whatever.

1.0 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I certainly do not complain that my hon. Friends opposite and my hon. Friend on this side have raised this this question. It certainly is very important that the matter should be made quite plain. It is naturally complicated and in my opinion it is its complication that has given rise to the misunderstanding which seems to prevail in all sections of the House. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) who raised this question told us that the larger authorities as far as he could make out have made no complaint, because, he said, they have a different way of making up their books. I should have thought that probably suggested the answer to the whole of his complaint—that this is really a book-keeping trouble. When an authority makes up its books in one way the action of the Treasury becomes perfectly intelligible and easily understood. If it makes up its books in another way then the action, which is a perfectly reasonable one, appears to be unsound. The hon. Member for Leith told us that if the concerns were simply handing over to the Inland Revenue a deduction which was made to the stockholders he would be perfectly satisfied. I suggest that this is in fact what is being done.

Mr. E. BROWN rose—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Let me develop my argument.

Mr. BROWN: I want to make it clear that I do not accept that statement. I should want more evidence.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member does not accept my version of what he said.

Mr. BROWN: I do not accept the statement that that is what is being done.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: What is the position? I will deal first with Dundee. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) did not give me notice he was going to raise the case of Dundee to-day and therefore I have not gone with meticulous care into the facts. I understand that the Dundee authorities have put up to the Treasury the facts of the case and that the Treasury is investigating these facts and according to what they find they will act when the time comes. Hon. Members in all parts of the House must realise that the Treasury is bound to carry out the law, and if according to the law as we interpret it the case of Dundee comes on one side we shall act in that way. If it appears to come on the other side we shall act in that way. If the local authorities are dissatisfied with the Treasury interpretation of the law they can take it to court as I understand is the case in which one particular matter owing to appeal is sub judice.
Now let us take the case of the three revenue-producing undertakings to which the hon. Member for Leith referred. He was good enough to give me notice so I have had opportunity of investigating them—the Burgh of Alva, Airdrie Water Board and Fraserburgh Harbour Board. In all these cases the undertaking is borrowing money from stockholders and paying them interest on that borrowed money. In the case of two of them I think it is the Alva Burgh and Fraser-burgh, the Treasury had undertaken to pay 50 per cent. of these interest charges. In the case of the Airdrie Water Board the grant is 65 per cent. Is it suggested that the grant from the Exchequer shall be 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. of the gross interest, or 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. of the interest less tax? I should have thought it was perfectly clear that when the Treasury undertakes to pay 50 per cent. of the interest charge it will be 50 per cent. of the interest less tax;
otherwise, the local authority is relieved, not of the 50 per cent. and 65 per cent., but of a very much greater proportion. Let us take an imaginary case. Supposing the Treasury were to have said—and I believe there are such cases—it would pay 100 per cent. of the interest charge. What does the hon. Member suggest there? Supposing the actual gross interest is £1,000 a year. The local authority does not pay £1,000 a year to the stockholders; with Income Tax at 4s. in the pound, it pays £800. Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that the Treasury, having agreed to pay 100 per cent., will hand to the local authority £1,000 and allow it to keep £200 as a special bonus for the local authority?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is not the right method for that £200 to be paid as Income Tax to be deducted, and not for the Treasury to take it from the amount they pay to the local authority?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It does not seem to matter very much what you call it, so long as the £200, which is the tax on the £1,000 paid to the stockholders, in some way or another finds its way into the Inland Revenue. That is all that we are saying; but owing to the method of book-keeping adopted it appears as if it were a deduction from the grant. If hon. Members will go into the matter they will find that is the case, and they will find, according to the contention they are making, that if the Treasury were to undertake to give a grant of 100 per cent. the local authority would actually be pocketing the tax which it deducts. There are no other means by which the tax deducted from the stockholders' interest shall find its way into the revenue, unless the Treasury, in providing the grant, deducts Income Tax upon it. When the hon. Member asks me whether the House of Commons intended that Income Tax should be deducted from grants I can only say that the House of Commons intended that the Income Tax law should be carried out, and when grants are made in relief of interest to be paid, quite clearly the local authority cannot make a profit out of the Income Tax deducted from the amount paid.
I have no doubt that I have not succeeded in convincing the hon. Member, because it is difficult to carry through an argument based on figures across the
Floor of the House, but I am quite sure that if he will sit down with an accountant and work it out, and if the smaller local authorities who have made this complaint will also go into it with accountants, they will find the position to be as I have stated. The position is this, that where a grant is made it cannot be used as a means for the local authority to obtain the tax for their own benefit. The tax deducted from the money paid to the stockholders should find its way into the Inland Revenue, and that is the intention and effect of this method which the Treasury employs. As I say, it is difficult to have an argument based on figures across the Floor, but let me give a hypothetical ease which the hon. Member can follow, and which he will be able to read afterwards in the Official Report. Let us take the case of a local authority with a revenue-producing concern. It obtains from the Government a grant of £1,000, representing 50 per cent. of the interest which it has to pay, the total amount of She interest being £2,000. Let us suppose that, apart from the £1,000 which it receives from the Government, it has trading receipts of £10,000 and that its trading expenses amount to £7,500. Its total receipts will be: trading receipts £10,000, Government grant £1,000; total £11,000. Its trading expenses are £7,500 and the interest on the loan £2,000. These last two items together make £9,500, leaving a net profit of £1,500. If, as is done, the Government grant of £1,000 is included in the receipts, tax is paid on £3,500. This represents the tax on £2,000 which is collected by deduction from the interest, plus the tax on £1,500, which is the net profit on the undertaking. If, however, the grant were not to be included the tax would be paid on £2,500 only. The tax on £2,000 is recovered by the local authority, and is borne by the recipients of the interest, leaving the undertaking to bear interest on £500 only, although its net profit is £1,500. This is a very complicated matter, but the point I would try to leave with the House is this: In all these matters the Treasury is merely endeavouring to carry out the law. The hon. Member said it was not the business of the Treasury to be legalistic. If he means by that that we are endeavouring to press She law unfairly and improperly, I deny that that is the case.

Mr. E. BROWN: I meant legalistic in this sense—putting an interpretation on things which was not put when the Act was passed and has not been put in the courts, but which is put because it occurs to some very clever man in the Revenue Department that a certain interpretation can be read into a word, although it was never intended by Parliament when it passed the word.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think I have attempted to misrepresent the use of the word "legalistic" by the hon. Member, but I think I ought to tell him that the Treasury, in taking this view, feel that they are taking what is the common-sense view when once the full implication of the Income Tax law is understood. It is perfectly clear that if the Treasury were to take a different view the local authority would be obtaining the tax collected from the stockholders, which tax was deducted on the assumption that it was tax to be handed over—

Mr. BROWN: May I explain—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, I cannot give way any more. I have given way a great many times.

Mr. BROWN: I am very sorry to worry the hon. Member, but really this is our only chance. He must realise that Members have to take the chances they get. When they cannot get answers they really must ask for this courtesy. I have given the hon. Member every courtesy in the matter. Six weeks ago I sent him particular cases, and in return he puts to us a certain number of hypothetical cases, of which we have never before heard. What is wanted is to get the Government to agree that in no case are grants to he included in the estimate of profits for assessment to Income Tax. This would not interfere with the rules which is presently acted on, and is quite a proper one, that the Government gets at least all Income Tax deducted from interest on loans. If the profits apart from grants exceed the amount of the gross interest paid, Income Tax is payable on the amount of the profits. That also is quite proper. The object is to grants being included in profits and Income Tax paid in respect thereof.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am endeavouring to give an interpretation of what is taking place. If the Govern-
ment were to forego this claim it would mean that we should not get Income Tax on the net profits of the undertaking and we should only get a part of it. I am sorry I cannot make it any plainer, but I hope if there is any other point in doubt, it may be dealt with by carefully examining the situation in view of all the facts.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I understand the answer given by the Financial Secretary to mean that the Inland Revenue do not require any more from the, undertakers than they have deducted from the stockholders.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is so.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I point out that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not made any statement in regard to the classes of grants referred to at the Conference in Edinburgh.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: So far as I am concerned I cannot give any undertaking, but I promised to convey to the Treasury what was said at the Conference.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Then you made no definite statement on the subject.

Mr. ADAMSON: No, I did not make a definite statement.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I wish to raise the question of the Amendments which have been suggested to the Covenant of the League of Nations. I am very sorry to have to raise this question on the last day of the session in what is practically an empty House, but I feel that the consideration should be given to this matter which it deserves. The only reason why I am raising this question on the last day of the session is that during the last forty-eight hours the Government, in this House and in another place, have made it quite clear that they are not going to confront Parliament before they come to a final decision in regard to these suggested Amendments to the Covenant. It was stated that we should have an opportunity of debate after ratification, but when that debate takes place, the international agreement in regard to the Covenant of the League will have
been signed, and it will be impossible to go back upon it. I certainly do not suggest that the terms of every international agreement and treaty should be submitted beforehand to Parliament, but I do say that this question is so serious that Parliament ought to be consulted beforehand. It is very serious because under the suggested amendments the commitments of this country are going to be very largely extended. Only the other day we were told that there was going to be an extension of Article 16, and the Government began bi-lateral negotiations with France, but fortunately the matter was raised in this House. The Government agreed to a meeting of the leaders of the different parties with the result that those negotiations were dropped.
We are now confronted with a much more serious situation. This House will not be sitting for a couple of months, and the Government propose in the meantime to bring forward these Amendments and make them a subject to be considered at an international conference. To my mind the intention of the Government is quite clear, and it has been clear for a considerable time. The Government are trying to reintroduce by a side wind what is known as the Geneva Protocol. That Protocol was rejected by this country in 1921 when the late Government took office, and it was rejected because it extended most dangerously the commitments of this country without any compensatory advantages. The Optional Clause was part of those proposals and the Government have now signed it. A great extension of our liability was another part of the same proposals, and the Government now proposes to take over the larger part of those liabilities.
What are the proposals of the Government in this matter—I am only going to deal specially with one point. Article 15 of the Covenant lays down that, if a dispute arises that is likely to lead to a rupture—a dispute, that is to say, which is not subject to arbitration or judicial settlement—it is to be submitted to the Council of the League. If the Council are unanimously agreed upon the Report, the members of the League are debarred from going to war with any party which complies with the recommendations of the report. That is
when the report is unanimous. If the report is not unanimous, then the members of the League have the right to take such action as they consider necessary. At the present moment, the unanimous recommendations of the Council under Article 15 do not have the effect of any binding decision whatsoever, and do not enforce any action whatsoever. Under the present Article they do not compel any member of the League of Nations to enforce the Council's recommendations against any other member of the League; the Article merely says that, where the report is unanimous, the parties concerned shall not resort to war.
What is it that the Government now propose? They propose by these suggested Amendments that, if the Council unanimously agree about a dispute of serious political import, the members of the League are obliged to comply with their recommendations; that is to say, every member of the League in future will be bound to adopt such coercive action as the Council recommend in order to compel the submission of any other member of the League, and, if any member of the League refuses, the sanctions of Article 16 immediately take effect. I submit that this completely alters some of the most important Articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and immensely extends the power of the Council of the League, turning it into a sort of super-State. It also very largely extends the liabilities into which this country may be drawn.
This House, as I said before, has no power, unfortunately, at the moment to prevent the Government from agreeing to an alteration of this character. The Amendments, presumably, are going to be passed during the Recess, and an agreement is going to be signed by the Government. The only privilege that we are going to have is that, when it is all through, when the Treaty has been signed, when there has been an international agreement, we are going to go through the farce of merely discussing the ratification. Hon. Members know perfectly well that, once the agreement is signed, a debate on ratification is really futile and a waste of time. I do submit that, in a serious case of this kind, the matter should be laid before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) took a very strong line the other day, when a bilateral negotiation with France was threatened in regard to the interpretation of Article 16 of the Covenant and the possible increase of our commitments; and I hope that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who, I understand, is going to speak this afternoon, will take an equally strong line, because there is absolutely no doubt in this case that our commitments are going to be increased.
Under these Amendments, we are committing ourselves in any part of the world against any member of the League; we are committing ourselves to inflict sanctions against any country; and certainly, in view of the fact that certain very powerful States are not members of the League at all, such a step seems to be of vital importance. I know that the Government argue that they only want to bring the Covenant into line with the Pact of Paris; but these Amendments go far further than merely bringing it into line with the Pact of Paris. They bring in an entirely new principle. Moreover, no sanctions were attached to the Pact of Paris. They were deliberately excluded. The United States, who were the initiators of the Pact of Paris, expressly refused to attach sanctions to that Pact. The whole world signed the Pact of Paris without any sanctions being attached to it. Why should we in this country go out of our way to create further responsibilities and liabilities for ourselves in cases where we may have no direct concern whatsoever?
I have no doubt at all that other countries would be delighted that the British Navy should go to their help in order to enforce awards in their behalf, but I submit that that is not what the British Navy was built for, and it is not what the British tapayers pay for. Our Navy was built for our defence; it was not built for the purpose of engaging in the quarrels of other people. I realise, and this is my last word, that it is too late to take this matter to a Division. We have now to wait till the autumn. But, if these Amendments are carried, as I am afraid they will be, and incorporated in an international agreement, I hope that Parliament will insist on going into the matter very carefully when it comes before this House, and will not hesitate to refuse ratification if the Amendments
are agreed upon in their present form. Meanwhile, the only thing that I can do is to record a very strong protest against the way in which the Government have treated this House.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to say a few words on this concluding day of the Session with reference to he policy to be pursued by His Majesty's Government at the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva this year, covering the point with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) has just dealt, but a number of other points as well. It seems to me that, however disappointing in many respects the policy of His Majesty's Government has been at home, when their foreign policy is regarded there can be no doubt that they have achieved a very great success, and have raised the international position and prestige of this country to a level that it has not occupied for a great many years past. I have been privileged to attend the last four Assemblies of the League of Nations, and nowhere was the position and prestige of this country more emphatically raised and placed in its proper position than by the action of the Government at Geneva last year. I very much hope that they will have ample opportunities of continuing this policy for some years to come, so as to cover the whole ground of peaceful advance. Suggestions have been made in one or two quarters from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said something the other day about a General Election being imminent. I do not know where he gets his information, but, personally, I see no reason to suppose that this Government will not continue for another three years or so, and I very much hope that they may so shape their policy and so control their own followers on the back benches as to make possible co-operation along lines of progressive advance, both at home and abroad, for the normal period of Parliament.
With regard to the questions that are likely to come before the Assembly of the League this year, I would like to say, first of all, a word with regard to the proposals of M. Briand for a United States of Europe. I think that the Memorandum submitted by His Majesty's Government is very sound in its criticism of those proposals, and I hope that,
if the French Government do not themselves bring this matter by their own motion before the Assembly, the British Government will do so, in order that the whole matter may be thoroughly discussed in the light of day in the Assembly itself. One criticism that we have to make is that there is a danger of setting up an entirely independent body, with a separate secretariat, working separately from the League, and to a certain extent conflicting with the work that it is doing. If anything of the kind is desirable for a certain section for Europe, it ought to be incorporated in the League itself. It ought to sit at Geneva and the work ought to be part and parcel of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. That would prevent any possible harm arising from the development of the group system, which would be disastrous to the work of the League.
There is the point I raised at Question Time to-day in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me what seemed a very unsatisfactory answer. That is the position of the Bank of International Settlements. In one of the debates in Committee at Geneva last year there was great anxiety expressed by one small country after another that steps should be taken to bring the International Bank and the League of Nations into touch in liaison work of some kind. Nothing was done, owing to the fear that the Americans might be kept out if there were any talk of the League being associated with the Bank. That danger has now passed, and it would be a most serious thing if a great international combine of banks, subject to no sort of public control, and subject in no way to public, opinion, were allowed to grow into a dominating position. They might control the economic life of the world to a great extent, and not in accordance the desires of the peoples of the world. I hope the Government, either publicly in the Assembly or by private conversations, will take such steps as they can to arrange that, either in the annual Report of the Bank or in some other way, its work may be brought before the Assembly or the appropriate organ of the League in discussion each year. I ask that the hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that the Government will not overlook that question when it comes up before the League.
One of the most important questions that will arise this year, as it has arisen every year, is undoubtedly international disarmament. The position is most serious. The League has so far failed to carry out its obligations, and the various States of the world, particularly the ex-Allies, have failed to carry out their four-fold pledge to reduce armaments to a proper level, and unless something is soon done on a practicable basis it will be impossible to prevent Germany and the other ex-enemy States from arming themselves. If the pledges made to them, that their disarmament was a preliminary to general disarmament, are not carried out, what right have we to say they shall disarm? There is great danger if steps are not taken to deal with disarmament on a proper basis. No settlement will be arrived at until there has been some accommodation between what one might call the Continental and the Anglo-Saxon point of view; the Continental point of view, rigid, based on juridical principles, wanting to know exactly what is going to happen in all conceivable circumstances, and the Anglo-Saxon point of view wishing to deal with a question on its merits as it arises, not to commit itself beforehand, to look not merely at the legal position but at the equities. It is the conflict between those two outlooks which is holding up advance. I think the Continental people have got to be content with something a little less rigid than they would like, and we have got to go somewhat further than we have gone at present in making it clear that we intend to carry out our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, and that, when the time comes for it to be put into operation, we shall do all we can reasonably be expected to do.
There have been a number of speeches made and articles published in the last few months which seem to suggest that we have no sort of international obligations at all in the matter, and that we can remain isolated. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it might be inferred that we were not bound by the Covenant. We have the most solemn obligations, out of which it is impossible to get. If hon. Members wish to maintain their point of view of isolation, there
is only one honourable course to take, either to propose an Amendment to the Covenant which will relieve us of our obligations, and if those cannot be passed, to give the necessary two years notice to leave the League of Nations altogether. If that is not done, we must carry out to the full the obligations that we have taken, and not suggest that our pledged word can be treated in any way as a scrap of paper. May I remind the House of the obligations that we have at present. Article 16 says:
Should any member of the League resort to war, in disregard of its covenants under Article 12, 13 or 15, it shall, ipso facto, be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League, which hereby undertakes immediately to subject itself to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a member of the League or not. It shall be the duty of the Council in such cases to recommend to the several governments concerned what effective military, naval or Air Force the members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League.
The question has been raised by France in the recent London Naval Treaty as to what those words meant, and what we were really prepared to do. I wish the Government were prepared to state exactly what the formula understood to have been arrived at with M. Briand was. The last speaker referred to it, but I understand the whole of the negotiations were confidential and I have no information on the subject. But the relevant document with regard to Article 16 is Annex F. of the Treaty of Locarno. That lays down clearly how we interpret our obligation. It says:
In accordance with that interpretation the obligations resulting from the said Article on the members of the League must he understood to mean that each State member of the League is bound to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant, and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account.
I think that makes quite clear what our position is, and if the Under-Secretary can give me any information as to the negotiations with the French Govern-
went, whether they were based on that, it is information that the House and the country ought to have. I should like to quote one Resolution to show how we are bound and that nations are supposed to rely on pooled armaments and not on their own national defences. That is the unanimous resolution of the Eighth Assembly of the League of Nations, September 26th, 1927, that the principal condition of success in the reduction of armaments is
that every State should be sure of not having to provide unaided for its security by means of its own armaments and should be able to rely also on organised collective action which should aim chiefly at forestalling or arresting any risk of war and, if need be, at effectively protecting any State the victim of aggression.
I understand the French point of view is, "Give us an assurance that we shall have that full security when the time comes and, if you will make it sufficiently definite, we are willing to give up our own national armaments." There is a great deal in that position, and I hope the Government at Geneva will have no hesitation in making it clear that this country intends to honour its word and to specify, as far as it possibly can, in what manner it intends to honour its word if the time should ever arise.
The suggestion that we can do without sanctions at all is entirely out of touch with the facts of the world, human nature being what. it is. You might as well suggest that inside a country you can do without police, and you could rely on the kindness and good will and high moral tone of burglars not to offend against the laws of the country. Exactly the same point of view with regard to police applies to world affairs. We want to regard the work of armies in the future more as police work and to change the name of military forces of a certain kind in order to make it clear that what they are intended for is not war in the ordinary old world sense—that is outlawed—but international police work subject to control and under the mandate of the League of Nations.
I would like to make reference to a point concerning the Kellogg Pact. During the debates on the London Naval Treaty it was suggested that there might be drawn up, in connection with the Pact, a consultative pact so that when trouble was likely to arise consultation could take place with the United States
of America. It was understood that, subject to certain conditions, and not as the price of anything, the Government of the United States were ready to consider a proposal of that kind. I submit that that really is not necessary. Mr. Kellogg has said that the right of consultation is inherent in the Pact itself. Not only is it inherent, but it has been used by the United States on two occasions already, in the case of the differences between Bolivia and Paraguay, and between China and Russia. The United States, on its own motion, consulted all, or many of, the other signatories in order to consider what action they might usefully take. That is a very significant precedent, and I hope that the Government will feel free, if such a situation should arise in future, to, if necessary, take the initiative and consult with the United States and other Governments in a way which it is clear is open to them without offence to America or to any other country. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, in replying, will say that he agrees with the view, that the right of consultation is plainly inherent in the Kellogg Pact itself.
The late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs dealt with the question of the Amendments of the Covenant. It is a very technical matter and I do not propose to go into the details of it. But it is one thing to have outlawed war in the Kellogg Pact and another thing to have done so in the Covenant of the League of Nations, because there is a gap in the Covenant and private war is allowed in certain circumstances. The Kellogg Pact fills up that gap. There are certain States in the world who, probably, would feel under a much greater moral obligation if they were bound by the whole of the machinery of the Covenant of the League of Nations rather than merely by the Kellogg Pact. As the Government have taken the initiative in this matter I do not see that they can possibly refrain from going forward on the lines which they initiated last year. I hope that they will go forward.
I do not think that there are any serious extensions of our obligations, and if there are risks, I venture to think that they will apply to all advances in a peaceful direction. There are risks on
both sides. If we take a little extra risk in doing this, we may thereby avoid much greater risks than if we stumble along in the same old world way in regard to force and armaments and things of that kind. I strongly support the proposal of the Government, if their proposal is to go forward with the Amendments to the Covenant, if they are satisfied that they can safely be entered into on behalf of the country. I trust that the Government may be able this year to do what they so successfully did last year, namely, to carry all the Dominions with them in the various actions they take. No doubt they are consulting with them at the present time. I hope that they will manage to do what they did on the Optional Clause last year and bring them in altogether.
But it is not essential that we should necessarily act as a United Empire on these matters. The late Government did not do it. When they agreed to the Locarno Treaty they did not bring in a single Dominion. They acted alone without the support of a single Dominion. I do not say that they were wrong, but it does not lie in their mouth to criticise the present Government for not, on every occasion, carrying with them every single one of the Dominions, though I hope that they may be successful again this year in doing so.
I am very glad that they have not confined the delegation entirely to members of one party and that they have incorporated into it again one of the most distinguished living members of the Conservative party and a man who in these matters occupies a position of very great influence not only in all parties in this country but throughout the whole world. Just as the Government last year signed the Optional Clause on behalf of this country, I trust that they will take the necessary further step and sign the general act of arbitration, conciliation and judicial settlement. Their action last year merely covered legal disputes. If they go further they will be covering the whole ground, disputes of a political nature as well. I strongly urge them to accede to that pact without the slightest hesitation when the time comes.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: May I ask the hon. Member if the gentleman to whom he refers is a Conservative?

Mr. MANDER: Probably the hon. Gentleman has better information with regard to that matter than I possess, but I should have thought that the Conservative party would have been extremely proud to have such a well-known man in their ranks. Certainly any other party would be proud to include in their ranks one of the greatest international statesmen of the day. I am surprised to hear the repudiation of Lord Cecil from the front bench above the Gangway.

Sir G. PENNY: I did not repudiate him. The hon. Member definitely stated that he was a Conservative and I questioned it.

Mr. MANDER: If the hon. Member says that he is not a Conservative and he does not repudiate him, what on earth does he mean?

Sir G. PENNY: He is rather like the Liberal party. We do not know whether he is.

Mr. MANDER: I think that we can leave Lord Cecil and his reputation to look after themselves amongst the people of this country. There are one or two other points which I should like to mention with reference to the policy at Geneva. I trust that the Government are going to give their adhesion to the proposal for financial assistance to States likely to be the subject of aggression. I believe that that will place a powerful weapon in the hands of the Council to prevent wars breaking out. We should be involved in no risk because no decision could be taken without its being unanimous. We should be a member of the Council, and therefore it would rest entirely with us whether we should make use of that weapon or not. I think that it would be a very valuable thing to do.
I hope that the Government will follow up the speech which was made by the Prime Minister last year with reference to the question of minorities. There are a number of people in different parts of Europe who have treaties which give them certain rights as a result of the War. There is no doubt at all on the
part of anybody who has gone into the question and satisfied himself, that those minorities are extremely dissatisfied with their condition at the present time, and minorities in other countries which have no minority treaties to protect them are also extremely dissatisfied. The machinery of the League for dealing with these minority questions does not seem to be working satisfactorily or smoothly at all. I hope that the Government will raise the matter and have the question considered as to whether some more appropriate and fitting machinery could not be devised. I know that a suggestion has been made that there, should be a permanent Minorities Commission. Personally, I think that that would be a mistake because you do not want to encourage in anyone's mind the idea that this is going to be a permanent sore in the life of tile world.
We hope that other countries will come to realise that the right and fair thing to do is to deal with minorities in the same way as the British Empire have dealt with their minorities in Canada, South Africa and in other places, and in the same way as they have been dealt with in Switzerland also where you have three peoples living in perfect amity with each other. The attempt to suppress personality and culture is hopeless. The only way to deal with the question is on the lines on which we in this country have settled the question. I suggest that some machinery of a conciliatory nature should be set up and that you should have a permanent body of experts at Geneva always available and ready to be sent out into any area from whence complaints were being received, and, in a private way and in a spirit of good will and conciliation, get into touch with both sides, and, from their knowledge and experience of similar difficulties, try and persuade the Governments and people concerned to come to some satisfactory settlement of their difficulty. Probably that would settle most cases but failing that there should be some more suitable machinery for appeal to the Council of the League.
The last point that I would like to make is, that there is and there can be no conflict of loyalty between the League of Nations and the British Empire. We are all proud, in our different ways, of representing various constituencies and
living in certain places, but that does not prevent us from being equally proud of being Englishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen, nor does it prevent us from being exceedingly proud of being members of the great British Empire, and I suggest that the highest patriotism for all of us would be to desire to see our country taking the lead in the League of Nations and using its immense influence in the world to bring all the forces of mankind along the paths of peaceful progress.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: It is hardly necessary for me to say how warmly I agree with practically every word that has fallen from the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). In his admirable speech he covered a great deal of ground, but since I desire to be brief I will not follow him in all his points. I should, however, like to say how important I thought his argument with regard to the Covenant and the sanctions which it contains. I am afraid that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have only too often forgotten the Pact of Locarno, which they concluded, and which was founded upon the acceptance of the words that we
shall loyally and effectively carry out the obligations of the Covenant in regard to the restraint of war,
and that those words were taken from the Geneva Protocol, to which they object so much. These words were the only additional military obligations that the Geneva Protocol contains. It has been shown on many occasions in recent months that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have now become so frightened of the obligations of the Covenant in this matter that they are doing very much, by their speeches and by their letters to the "Times"—I allude particularly to the letter sent to the "Times" by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain)—to make foreign nations believe that we attach no importance whatever to the obligations that we have undertaken, and that we in no way regard the Covenant of the League as being an instrument for the maintenance of the security of nations. I know that is not what is intended but it is the result of what they do, and they have only to ask anyone who is conversant with public opinion in the European countries to know that that is what is happening to-day.
As I do not propose to follow the points of the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, I want to deal with the observations of the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) with regard to the Amendments of the Covenant, and particularly in two aspects—what he said in regard to the procedure as to the acceptance of the Amendments, and what he said about the increase of commitments which the Amendments involve. If we were to accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the procedure, it would involve every Government in this country in consequences of a grievous kind, consequences which his own Government would never for one moment have accepted. I do not want to argue the constitutional provision, but the fact is that action is taken on the prerogative of the Crown, that it is an executive action, that they then report their action to this House and, under the procedure which we have initiated that no obligation shall be undertaken without the consent of the House of Commons, that report will require the consent of the House of Commons before ratification takes place. It is perfectly open to the House to refuse that consent and to forbid ratification by the Government of the day.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has told us repeatedly that in this matter of the amendment of the Covenant he would never dream of committing the country until this House had had an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion. What is the procedure that he proposes? That our delegation should go to Geneva, that they should agree with the other nations what is desirable in regard to amendment, that they should then report to this House, that there should be a debate and that if the House approves we should ratify what they have done. The right hon. Member for Wood Green says that the debate is useless, and that it is impossible to go back upon any international agreement made with the Assembly or in any international conference. Why did his own Government destroy the Geneva Protocol, if that is so? Of course, it is not so. If it is as serious a matter as the right hon. Gentleman thinks, it would be open to the Opposition to turn us out of office, and if the majority of the House are against us on this matter I hope that they will turn us out of office on this issue alone.
2.0 p.m.
The right hon. Member wants us to go very much further. He wants the Secretary of State to say: "I am going to Geneva, but I will not agree to anything. I asked the Assembly a year ago to set up a Committee to discuss these Amendments. It was my own proposal. The Committee has met and reported, and I am now going to the Assembly to say that it must reach no conclusion, because my opponents in the House of Commons have not used their opportunities during the last year to have a debate, and therefore I must wait until November to have that debate. Perhaps at the Assembly in 1931 we may be able to do some business." I submit to the House that such a course is contrary to the whole theory of the British constitution and that it would make international action absolutely impossible. If we sent plenipotentiaries to an international conference they would not be able to work with any value if they were so hampered, no Government would be able to carry out a policy and, most important in this connection, it would make the Assembly and the general machinery of the League absolutely unworkable. During the last year the Opposition have had a great many opportunities to raise this matter and to find out what we meant to do.
It was our proposal. The Secretary of State put it forward himself. Is it likely that, having put forward such a proposal, he is not going to endeavour to carry it through? He put it forward last September, without a ripple of opposition from the other side. At the Council in January of this year a Committee was set up to draw up the detailed Amendments and the Secretary of State again declared his policy in the matter. That Committee reported in March. The report was laid upon the Table of this House. In May the Secretary of State at Geneva again said that he approved the general policy of the report and that he hoped the Assembly would adopt the Amendments as they were put forward. There have been dozens of opportunities, including the Foreign Office Vote only a few days ago, when we might have discussed this matter instead of discussing Russia, to which this House has devoted a great deal of attention in the last few months. The Secretary of State has given the Opposition every opportunity to express their views. The Opposition
may be perfectly certain that the Assembly will not adopt any proposals which are not in agreement with the principles which the Secretary of State has already put forward. That is absolutely certain. There can be no sudden turn or twist in the negotiations which would vitiate the whole matter. Therefore, the situation remains that the party opposite have had every chance to discuss what we are going to do and they have not taken that opportunity.
I should like to point out to hon. Members opposite that we have a number of precedents for what we are doing. The Conservative Government have more than once agreed to Amendments of the Covenant. They may say that the Amendments were not important. They were certainly not so important as these, but they were important. On another occasion they have put through a policy of much more importance in the matter of commitments—I mean the Locarno Treaty. The Locarno Treaty involves the question of commitments, the most dangerous military commitments this country has ever undertaken. It was not a renunciation of the right of war, for although France and Germany accepted that, we refused. It was not a policy of arbitration, for although France and Germany accepted that, we refused. It was not a policy of disarmament, for we made no conditions with France and Germany that they must accept disarmament before we can go to war. It was nothing but a treaty. It was the most dangerous guarantee we could have given, for we undertook to give support to two nations, one of which had been disarmed by the Versailles Treaty and the other was the strongest military nation of the world. Therefore, the commitments which Members opposite made were the most dangerous military commitments ever made.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: They were approved by the Opposition of that day.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: Yes, they were approved, but with certain reservations. We pointed out that it would be a far better policy if there had been conditions for disarmament or if other measures had been taken dealing with compulsory arbitration. But that is not the point I am seeking to make. The point I wish to make is this, that that policy of military commitments was accepted by the same procedure which we
now propose. There was no vote taken here before it was accepted. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, by a process which was described as the making of the Locarno Pact, initialed it at Geneva, and when he came back here he had committed the Government. He accepted the Pact, and then he came here and said, "It is here for ratification." That is what we are doing. I submit that there is no case on the question of procedure.
I pass to the second point, that of the extension of commitments, what the right hon. Gentleman called "a large extension of our commitments under the Covenant." As to Paragraph 6, Article 14, he said that under what was now proposed, members of the League would be obliged to accept the representation of the Council given in the case of disputes under Paragraph 6. He said that if they refused to accept such a representation, sanctions would be applied against them. I submit that the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to these Amendments is due to the fact that he was not interpreting the Amendments as it is necessary to interpret them. We should not accept the view he put forward. All that the Amendment does is to extend to the representation of the Council the procedure laid down for arbitration under Paragraph 4 of Article 13.
I would call attention to the fact that the general Act would be accepted, and all disputes would go to arbitration and not to the Council. But in those cases is it really true that if the representation is not accepted by one of the parties, then the Council is obliged to apply sanctions? I submit that the Amendment means nothing of the kind. I would point out that last year the Assembly laid down, under Paragraph 4, Article 13, that the Council could not use the means of war to secure the acceptance of a verdict or of an award. Not only does that representation hold good and apply to the new Paragraph 6 of Article 13, but I submit that under the Covenant, if the Council did any such thing it would be asking members of the League to violate their own obligations not to go to war.
But there is a more important question, whether these Amendments really add in any way to the commitments
which we have undertaken. What is the purpose of the Secretary of State in moving these Amendments? The right hon. Gentleman said it was in order to reintroduce the Geneva Protocol. I submit that the Kellogg Pact was the result of the Geneva Pact; I submit also that the purpose of the Secretary of State was simply this, to bring into harmony with the Kellogg Pact the Covenant as it stands. Under the existing situation we, like other Members, have two kinds of obligations, not to go to war with another State, which leaves us in certain theoretical cases the right to resort to war for national needs; that is the covenant as it stands, including the gap. The second is the Kellogg Pact, which imposes certain obligations which are absolute, and leaves us no right of war on behalf of our national policy in any circumstances whatever. In other words, the Covenant leaves the initiative of private war which the Kellogg Pact takes away. The Secretary of State said that if the Kellogg Pact was seriously intended and Governments meant business, then it was obviously necessary that its terms must be incorporated in the Covenant, which is the basis on which the League is founded.

Major ELLIOT: There is the further point, the extension of further disputes, of other matters which we are not bound to take into account now, but we would have to do if this formed part of it.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: I do not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major ELLIOT: Our contention is, not only the defence of our position, but defence regarding other States with which we would be automatically involved.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: If I have understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, then that is the point to which I am coming. As I understand the argument put forward this morning—and it has been put forward in recent months in debate—the opponents of these Amendments say that in certain cases under the Covenant Las it stands, the right of war arising under Article 16 does not apply, and we shall be free of the obligation to take part in sanctions. Under the Amendments these theoretical cases are swept away. There is no case in which the right
of war can arise. If there should ever be hostilities, in every case of aggression we should be obliged to take part in the sanctions for its restraint, and therefore, as in some cases sanctions apply hereafter, there must be an extension of which they speak.
I do not want to deal with the use of the word "commitments" by hon. Members opposite, who seem very ready to contemplate wars of the old kind. The right hon. Gentleman said that our Navy was for the defence of ourselves, not for the defence of other people. I want to submit to him that it is not right to use the word "commitments" in a sinister sense in respect of an undertaking to co-operate with the rest of the world in the restraint of international wars. Our real defence, and our only defence, against the horrors which he and every other hon. Member desires to defend us, is the prevention of all international wars by means of the machinery of the League, and, therefore, we in common with other nations use those powers which we retain for the prevention of war. That is our defence in the truest possible sense of the word; and it is not fair to use the word "commitments" in a sinister sense in that connection.
I want to say a word about the conception which has given rise to this alleged extension of commitments. I submit that it arises from a militarist conception which is no longer true. Hon. Members opposite say that there are going to be more cases in which sanctions will have to be applied. That assumes that there is a fixed number of wars which are certain to happen in years to come and that the effect of the Covenant of the League is merely to make these wars universal instead of leaving them national as they might otherwise be. That is a fantastic assumption. I submit that the whole conception of a fixed number of future wars is false and wrong. Wars are of two kinds. They are small or great, between small Powers or between great Powers. If a war between small Powers should break out we know that the League of Nations machinery as it stands is perfectly equal to the task of stopping it. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) stopped a war between Bulgaria and Greece in 1925 and, therefore, that hypothetical small war can be ruled out.
There remains a war between great Powers, and in such a war many people believe that we shall be in it whether there is a Covenant or not. Is it really possible to think that there is going to be a large number of such wars? Surely not. There will be one such war, if there is any, and that war will either destroy the League altogether or else it will lead to a drastic revision of the Covenant upon which the League is founded. Therefore, the whole question is how to make that one war less likely to break out, how to prevent aggression. If we can prevent the risk of aggression we are reducing the risk of Article XVI ever being applied, and reducing the burden of what are called commitments. We believe that the risk will certainly be reduced by the policy of the Government. The argument of the right hon. Member opposite would strike at the root of the Kellogg Pact, because it would leave this distinction between some wars which are absolutely illegitimate and some which are relatively legitimate, whereas the whole basis of the Kellogg Pact is the outlawry of war of every kind. We believe that these Amendments will greatly strengthen the moral power of the Kellogg Pact. We believe that they would make nations much more ready to disarm if this risk of war was wiped out of their calculations. We believe that a continuance of the risk of legitimate war leaves them with what we may call the war mind. Therefore, we hope that the Assembly will accept these Amendments.
We refuse the case put forward by hon. Members opposite, partly because it is contrary to constitutional practice, it would render international action impossible and the League of Nations unworkable, and because we have a precedent from the Conservative Government for what we propose to do. The Amendments are desirable in themselves because they will diminish the risk of war and therefore the burden of commitments; and by abolishing the right to make war we shall get both governments and peoples out of the war mind. I want to suggest to the right hon. Member opposite that the difference between us and his side of the House is simple but fundamental. We believe that war can be got rid of in our own day and generation. He would like to think it was possible. He still thinks, as Lord Cushenden thought when he came away from
signing the Kellogg Pact in Paris and said to the journalists that it was important to remember that the Kellogg Pact did not abolish war because if it was thought it did it would lead to a great disappointment when the next war broke out. We believe that we can abolish war in our day and generation, and it is precisely because we think these Amendments are going to help in that task that we hope we shall soon be able to bring them into force.

Captain EDEN: It must be very welcome to the Government to receive the eloquent eulogy of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in the last hours of a Session which has not been marked by the amount of praise the Government have received from their own supporters. It must have been very welcome to have bouquets thrown at them by hon. Members below the Gangway. As I listened to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton propounding a policy diametrically opposed to what his own leader has so often denounced, I could not help recalling how in the early days of this Session the Liberal party was going to hold the balance of power and to reflect how sad it was, on the last day of the Session, to find the Liberal party being dragged ignominiously at the tail of the chariot of a Government so discredited as the present administration. Hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Government Bench, if they have lost millions of supporters in the country, have found one supporter at least on the Liberal benches. I cannot follow the very interesting speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker), who is always so lucid on these occasions, nor can I follow him in his eloquent peroration in the cause of international peace. The matter with which we have to deal does not require an eloquent peroration, but some close examination in detail. It is admittedly a matter of detail; but very important detail.
What is our case against the Government to-day? It is really a very simple one. The hon. Member for Coventry tried to defend the procedure of the Government in this instance. What is our charge against the Government? Some of us on this side of the House have asked the Foreign Secretary whether
he would give us an opportunity of discussing the question of these Amendments, and we were told that they would be discussed at Geneva, and that we should have an opportunity of debating them before ratification. We were all fully aware of that, but that is not our case at all. The right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) has put the point that a debate previous to ratification is of no value on such an issue as this. Once the Amendments have been decided upon at Geneva we shall have no alternative but to approve or deny. We may not want to deny all these Amendments, and, indeed, we do not; with some of them we agree. What we ask is that we should have an opportunity of debating them, to suggest amendments, before we are faced with an agreement which we can only approve or refuse. The Prime Minister has appealed for a Council of State. What has happened to it? I can hardly imagine the Council of State having more useful work than this to do. The Foreign Secretary's attitude has been somewhat remarkable. He has told us that if the House was going to discuss these Amendments he did not know into what sort of confusion we might get. I do not agree with that doctrine. I do not agree with the proposition that this House is not competent to discuss matters of this kind. It is as fully competent to discuss them as it is to debate Amendments to any Bill, and it is not treating the matter properly to ask the House to accept the decision of the Government and tell us that we should be graciously pleased and content.
What are our most important criticisms of these Amendments? Briefly they are these. The most serious criticism is against the Amendment to Article XIV. As I see it, that means that whereas at present the Council, following on the unanimous decision of a political issue—I ask the House to note that it is almost bound to be a political issue of first-class importance which comes up, as there is a separate machinery for legal disputes—the Council to-day is in the position of an advisory authority, but this Amendment will put it into the position of a super-sovereign state provided that the Council can reach a unanimous decision. If that be true, it is a very serious case against
these Amendments. I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Coventry in the way in which he dealt with the Amendments, and also in disagreement with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, who told us that he had been at Geneva for the last four years and was enormously impressed with the added prestige of this country, and said that he thought our foreign policy must be a very good one if everyone at Geneva thought it excellent from their point of view.
There is another point of view from which British policy should be examined. There is something infinitely more important even than receiving the cheers of the Assembly at Geneva. Anyone who has been to the Assembly knows how cheers can be got if only you make concessions which please the Assembly. But the British Government has other things to do. It has to look after the interests of our own country, even though these may not always mean commitments to which Geneva would like us to put our signature. I take the strongest exception to a foreign policy which is exclusively guided by foreign plaudits. It is suggested that we ought to view in an impartial frame of mind the use to which, under these commitments, the British Navy might be put. The last speaker seemed to reiterate what we have always suspected, that here is our old friend the Protocol up again in a different disguise. That is what we have always thought. As I listened to the hon. Member I thought that here we had again the plea that Great Britain should act as the special constable of the world, and that the British fleet should be available for this, that or the other at the unanimous decision of the Council of the League.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: All I said was that the principle with regard to military commitments contained in the Protocol was accepted by the hon. and gallant Member's own government in Annexe F. an interpretation which is of general application and was adopted by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain).

Captain EDEN: I accept that application, but that is not the point with which I am dealing now. My point is that under Article 15, at the command of the Council, we might be placed under an obligation where previously there lay no
obligation upon us. Previously the Council had simply authority to give advice, and now it is to have authority to command action. That is the difference which we think we see in these commitments, and it is an important difference. It places the British Navy in the position of special constable, to act in various parts of the world. Indeed, it must be apparent that some new commitment of this kind is included, from the enthusiasm with which other countries are prepared to endorse these Amendments. Other countries are always anxious to take on new commitments because it, is the British Navy which would have to carry them out. Those countries are not in much distress at seeing new commitments undertaken which can be fulfilled only by naval action. It is a little paradoxical that while we exclaim against the expenditure of money on armaments we are continually adopting extra commitments which can only be fulfilled by the action of the British Navy.
The more I examine these particular Amendments the more reluctant I am to see this country put its signature to them without first allowing Parliament to speak of them and judge them. The last speaker referred at some length to the Conservative party not taking seriously its obligations under the League. On the contrary we do accept our obligations seriously. When in office we proved ourselves good members of the League, and it is precisely because we take our obligations seriously that we are not prepared to add to them hurriedly, or to extend them without the most careful examination of what they mean. I do not think it unreasonable that we should ask the Government to take that point of view also. We have had the Locarno precedent quoted. It is not really very impressive. No one could tell before the Locarno negotiations what the terms of the Treaty might be. You must give to your representatives negotiating a Treaty of that kind the freest hand. Here the Amendments are available to us all, and we can all discuss them before Geneva. At this eleventh hour I can hardly hope to weaken the firm front of the Government on this issue, however much it may wobble on others, but I ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to exercise the greatest discretion in negotiating these Amendments at Geneva, and to re-
member that a new commitment for this country may have reactions down the generations far more serious than we may realise when we put our name to it now, and that it is just because the word of the British Empire has never been broken that this matter is so important.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate complained that this matter was being discussed only on the last day of the Session. That is not our fault. We had a debate on the Foreign Office Vote only a few days ago, and if the Leaders of the party opposite had attached to this subject the great importance which the right hon. Gentleman himself appears to attach to it, it could easily have been arranged that a considerable part of that Supply day could have been devoted to a discussion of this matter. The fact that it was not then discussed seems to indicate that the party opposite are not united in thinking that the country is imperilled by these Amendments. Moreover, apart from the way in which a Supply day might have been occupied, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last May, in answer to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), stated that if the party opposite desired a discussion on these Amendments in the course of the Session, and if they made a request through the usual channels, they would of course he met. Such a request was never made. It is for that reason that the matter is left to the last day of the Session.
Apart from these Amendments, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) dealt with various wider issues connected with the, work of the League of Nations and the prospects of the next Assembly. It would be most convenient, perhaps, if first of all I said something about the Amendments to the Covenant, and then passed to that wider ground. The Amendments to the Covenant are designed to complete, so far as members of the League of Nations are concerned, the outlawry of war to which we and practically all other States of the world with a few exceptions are committed through having signed the Kellogg Pact. That is the general principle underlying the Amendments. There are several al-
ternative ways in which that object might be achieved. Last September the British Delegation made certain proposals of a definite kind at Geneva, for giving effect to that general principle. That was, as it were, the first version of the Amendments to the Covenant from the British side. That version has been somewhat modified as a result of the meeting of the Committee of 13 on which Lord Cecil has sat.
It is still possible—and this is relevant to the line of argument developed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last—that at the next Assembly the amendments as they now stand will be still further modified. That, in itself, shows that detailed discussions in this House upon precise forms of words may not be really satisfactory if it is desired, as the right hon. Gentleman says it was desired in the case of Locarno, to leave the British Government reasonable freedom to negotiate on the spot regarding the various proposals which may be brought up. I repeat that these amendments, embodying this principle, have already passed through two stages and may yet pass into the third, but I certainly say that we must have the same freedom to go out to Geneva and negotiate with a view to carrying out the principles which we have laid down, and securing the agreement of other nations thereto, as any other Government which has represented this country in past years, either at Geneva or at any other international conference. We ought not to be tied up in advance to certain fixed formulas from which no departure is possible.
I am sorry that several hon. Gentlemen opposite and indeed the right hon. Gentleman himself expressed the view that debates in this House on foreign policy before acts of ratification were a farce. I am sorry that that should be said. Perhaps the prevalence of that view explains the fact that our predecessors did not commit themselves, as we have committed ourselves, not to take any important step of this kind without first securing the support of the House of Commons. We do not regard these debates as a farce; we regard them as a very essential part of the control, I will not say by Parliament because that is an ambiguous word, but the control by the House of Commons and the elected
representatives al the people, of the foreign policy pursued by the Government of the day. [Interruption.] Yes, these matters may be debated in another place, but the Government will not be deflected from its policy by any hostile votes which may be given in another place. We are committed, however, to securing the sanction of the House of Commons for any important departure in foreign affairs.
With regard to the substance of the Amendments, I should dispute the interpretation which has been put upon them, although I admit that there may be something to be said for that interpretation, unless we remove any possibility of ambiguity. I dispute the interpretation placed upon the proposed Amendment to Article 15 to the effect that it contemplates that acts of war should become permissible against States which have not themselves committed any act of war. I should dispute the proposition that it will become legitimate under this Amendment to pot any sitting rabbit. There may be some ambiguity in the form of words. If so, by all means let us seek to remove that ambiguity. I have been reading the terms of a very interesting resolution recently carried by the League of Nations Union Executive. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) who is, I understand, to reply to me is a member of that body and is a party to this Resolution:
That the League of Nations Union Executive Committee are of opinion that it is desirable so to amend the Covenant as to bring it into harmony with the Pact of Paris. They recognise that this can only be done by international agreement and they support the proposed Amendment.
Their support is subject to two qualifications which I shall mention. But that. I understand to be the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite—that he supports the proposed Amendments subject to qualifications. That was not the view of the right hon. Gentleman who opened this debate nor was it the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick (Captain Eden). They did not support the proposed Amendments subject only to the two qualifications which I am now going to mention. They opposed them. The qualifications were, first, that these Amendments of the Covenant should not come into effect until a disarmament treaty had been carried through, and,
second, that it should be made quite clear that while the Council must have discretion as to how it should exercise its powers under Articles 11, 13 and 15, it should be understood that they would not recommend measures involving acts of war, except against a party which had itself resorted to war. Having stated that second qualification, I may say that I am in complete agreement with it and I think that in saying this I can speak on behalf of the Government. I do not think we should ever lend ourselves to an interpretation of this Amendment by which we might be required to commit acts of war against a State which, although recalcitrant, although unreasonable, although, perhaps, occupying an unjustifiable position, was still keeping the peace and not breaking it.
On the other hand, as regards the question of postponing the operation of these Amendments until after disarmament has come into effect—there is something to be said for that proposition and something against it, and I am not able here and now to say that the Government either will or will not accept that view. It will have to be considered in relation to the whole problem as it presents itself at Geneva. I would emphasise the fact that the Conservative party is not united upon this matter. We have here the view of the League of Nations Union Executive Committee upon which Conservative and Liberal Members serve, sometimes in predominant numbers compared with the members of our party, and it is evident that the Conservative party is not united in support of the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). That perhaps accounts for the fact that it has been left to the last day of the Session for him to launch his attack upon us in this respect. With regard to the alleged extension of sanctions, I refer once more to the resolution of the League of Nations Union because it exactly represents the point of view of the Government:
If these conditions are fulfilled the Executive Committee, while recognising that the ambit of Article 16 will be, in principle, extended, yet are of opinion that the guarantees of peace will on the whole be increased.
That, I take it, is the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and
that is our View and that is the whole case for these Amendments in a nutshell. We believe that they will, on the whole, increase the guarantees of peace. Because we believed that we took the initiative last year in proposing the principle which they embody, and we shall take the initiative again this year in seeking to get them accepted by the Assembly.
I turn to the other questions which have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said some very kind things about our Government.

Mr. MANDER: About its foreign policy.

Mr. DALTON: He said some very kind things about the Government's foreign policy which I appreciate very much. I sincerely recognise that there has been no great divergence, hitherto, between the foreign policy which the Government have pursued, and the views of the hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway opposite. I hope that that concord and co-operation in the great cause of the peace of the world may continue. The hon. Member raised a number of points on items which will come up at the Assembly this year. Many of these are at present under discussion between us and the Dominion Governments. We hope to be able to do what he suggested. We hope to be able, as a result of discussion with the Dominion Governments, to present a united front at Geneva on these various questions, as we were able to do with regard to the Optional Clause last year. Obviously, however, while these discussions with the Dominion Governments are still proceeding, it would not be right for me to go into any great detail about these different problems.
But we are hopeful of making progress with the General Act, with the Treaty of Financial Assistance, with the discussion by the Assembly of Monsieur Briand's Memorandum, with regard to which, as the hon. Member said, the Government have expressed their views very clearly. We. are hopeful, although this will not come up at the Assembly, that something may be done, if only by the creation of a friendly and helpful atmosphere, to speed forward the work of disarmament. I entirely agree with what he said—and he said what I have often heard the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs
(Mr. Lloyd George) say—that we cannot go on year after year talking about disarmament and having one group of States compulsorily disarmed under the peace treaties and the others doing nothing but talk about disarmament. I entirely agree with that point of view, and I can assure the hon. Member that the Government will do everything they possibly can to speed up the process of disarmament and encourage the will to disarm, and to disarm quickly, among the various nations assembled at Geneva.
It has been a terribly slow rate of progress. We are very disappointed, looking back over the years since the end of the War, that there has been so much talk and so little action in regard to disarmament, whether on land, in the air, or at sea, and, so far as our influence is concerned, it will be an influence entirely in favour of a vigorous policy of disarmament. My hon. Friend behind me said that our party had not been in power for a very large fraction of that time, and that is true, but I do not propose to pursue that point any further. I would like rather to turn to the future and suggest to the House that these are formative years at Geneva and in the whole sphere of international relationships. We did, I think, take a step forward last year. We did, I think, give an illustration of the old truth, which has often been enunciated by those who are acquainted with the work at Geneva, that when England goes forward the whole League of Nations goes forward, and when England stands still the whole League of Nations stands still.
We passed out last year from a period of stagnation into a period of progress. Some foreign observers who had been accustomed to delegations of another kind said, "Ah, these Labour people come here this year and make their speeches and their proposals, but they will go away, and in a few months they will crash to the ground, and there will be another General Election, and then we shall get back to the old familiar faces once again." It is quite evident now that that will not happen before the next Assembly meets. We shall, for the second year, go back there and seek to gather the harvest which was sown last year. A number of these items referred to by the hon. Member are items which arise naturally as a result of initiatives taken by the British
delegation last year, and we hope to push these through and complete the work in the coming Assembly. I hope I have sufficiently answered the points which were put to me from below the Gangway opposite.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us a word about the International Bank and about minorities?

Mr. DALTON: With regard to the International Bank, there was some discussion last year in the Fourth Commission at the Assembly. The International Bank was then not in existence, as the hon. Member knows, and expression was given in the Fourth Commission to the view that while not wishing in any way to interfere with the constitution and the proper functions of the Bank, it was very desirable that some contact, some liaison, should be kept between the Bank and the League. That was said in a quite general way, and this year, now that the Bank is in existence and has begun to operate no doubt the matter will be raised again in the Fourth Commission, which deals with financial questions, and we may have an opportunity of considering how far it is possible to apply those general ideas that were thrown out in last year's discussion.
With regard to minorities, it is quite true that there have been many complaints of the working of the present system, which has only been in operation for just over a year. It was invented at the Madrid Council, held just before the present Government came into office, and there have been a number of complaints about it from many quarters. As my right hon. Friend stated, in reply to questions the other day, we are very carefully going into the question of this machinery. We have, in fact, a small committee of members of the British delegation examining the matter, and we shall have to consider what action to take in the event of the minorities question being raised, as it probably will be raised, by some other State at Geneva. The part which this country has taken, having been able to deal with minority questions of its own very satisfactorily, has been that of an honest broker, and I hope we shall continue to take that part, not leaning too much either to the extreme exponents of the claims of the minorities or to the extreme exponents of the other view, by which such claims have been in
danger of being whittled away. I hope we shall be able, if the question comes up, to make a useful contribution and to secure proper attention for all definite and reasonable claims that may be put up by the minorities, while not encouraging certain rather fantastic over-emphases of the minority position which are sometimes put forward.
In general terms, I can say that we are considering that subject very carefully, and we are anxious to make a helpful contribution to the discussion which will almost certainly arise this year. We have not yet precisely defined our attitude on the matter, and between now and the discussion at Geneva we shall no doubt carry our inquiries further. I hope that when we return and meet the House next Session, and when what, we have done at Geneva is brought up for discussion, and particularly any question of ratifying Amendments to the Covenant, our action will commend itself on careful consideration to the majority of the House. It is only on condition that it does commend itself to the majority of the House that we shall carry into effect any of those projects, requiring ratification, that we shall put forward during the meeting of the Assembly.

Major ELLIOT: The Under-Secretary of State has referred to certain general points with regard to the policy of the Government at the forthcoming Assembly, and has made a declaration, which I think is of the utmost importance, with regard to the subject specifically raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), namely, the question of the ratification of the proposed Amendments to the Covenant. I do not propose to follow him in an argument on the personal distinction and achievements of the various delegations sent by Governments of one complexion or another to the League of Nations. I can only say that when the Labour party produces a statesman so eminent, so well respected, such a keen advocate of the League of Nations, and so successful in his results as the late Earl of Balfour, the hon. Member will have some ground for accusing the delegations which other Governments have sent to the Assembly of the League.
I do not wish to dilate upon them, but I am perfectly willing to put the achieve-
ments of the Conservative Government at the Assembly of the League against, those of any other Government, and certainly not least the Government of which the hon. Member forms so distinguished an ornament. We are looking forward to seeing the hon. Member in these seats explaining with more freedom the great achievements he has been able to make, but he had better make them quickly. He took great pride that his Government had not yet crashed. He may attend this Conference, as this is the last day of the Session, but he may be certain that it will be the last year he and his colleagues will be at Geneva. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary has complained that we have not raised this matter at an earlier stage in the Session. Let me point out that the hon. Member himself has supplied a convincing argument for not raising it until this stage. He states that he and the Government are going to an international conference of the first order to place before the Assembly and the League amendments of far-reaching and vital importance to the future of the country and have not even yet made up their minds on the conditions they are going to put forward. He makes the case quite definitely, first that there is ambiguity.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: No.

Major ELLIOT: He says there may be ambiguity; if so, let us remove it.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: If there is ambiguity, he said.

Major ELLIOT: Further, the Resolution which was passed by the executive of the League of Nations Union, by the body of which Lord Cecil of Chelwood, one of the members of his own delegation was a member, states "no alteration in the existing provisions of the Covenant should be made until a treaty for the reduction and limitation of armaments in pursuance of Article 8 has entered into force." This is the last day of the Session, Parliament is about to be prorogued, and up to this moment the Under-Secretary cannot inform us whether or not he is going to insist on that vitally important exception before he fixes the signature of Great Britain to these proposed Amendments and brings them back here to be accepted or refused, not on the merits of
the Amendments, but as a vote of confidence whether the Government shall stand or fall.

Mr. NOEL BAKER: I believe the Resolution the hon. Member is referring to was passed as long ago as April.

Major ELLIOT: We have done our utmost to find out from the Government its attitude on the subject. We have put questions in the House. The hon. Member himself closely connected with the machinery of government, sometimes acting apparently almost as an executive officer of the State, knows the clinching effect of a declaration made by the Government in this House. If the Government had declared themselves against this proposed proviso, it would have been absolutely damning to ourselves. We were most anxious the Government should not declare itself against it. We are glad the Under-Secretary has not yet declared himself against it, although we say definitely that it is very reprehensible of the Government not yet to have made up its mind on the subject on the last occasion on which it comes before the House before the signature of the Government is to be fixed to the final draft of this instrument.
3.0 p.m.
The speeches of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side of the House were devoted to the point that this increases our commitments. Nobody denies it increases our commitments, and those of us who have examined it say that this can only be balanced by some counter-limitation. If, as it is necessary to assume, our armed forces are to be invoked in quarrels in which but for this instrument they would not have been invoked, let us see that the forces against which they may be invoked should be as small as possible. The hon. Member's own delegation is going to the Assembly of the League divided on this fundamental issue. The hon. Member shakes his head. Lord Cecil of Chelwood, after reading the Resolution, which says that he accepts the proposed Amendment as a reasonable compromise and on the condition that a treaty for the reduction and limitation of armaments has entered into force, says, "I was a party to that Resolution, I warmly support it and I think it is right." [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I have no
wish to enter at length into the Noble Lord's speech, but in another place the debates have made it clear that the Noble Lord, himself to be a member of the Assembly delegation, held firmly that no alteration should be made until another treaty should enter into force; while the Government representative this afternoon says the Government have no policy on this subject and have not yet made up their mind.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made a speech in favour of the Government's proposals. Yet a distinguished member of his own party in another place, who has given as great attention to the study of international affairs as any man living, and who has devoted himself especially to the bearing of these proposals on our relations with the United States, indicated most clearly that it would be fatal if the Government were to give other nations at the Assembly the hope that the signing of these Amendments would be followed by ratification, unless the exceptions to which the Resolution has referred were also given effect to at the same time.
This is a very serious matter. Those who have given great skill and consideration to it, such as Lord Cecil and the Marquis of Lothian, have both spoken against the signing of this instrument unless previously a disarmament treaty has entered into force. The question of disarmament is vital to these international instruments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) recently made an important speech pointing out that the piling up of armaments persisted apace and that the dangers which these documents and instruments were supposed to avert were aparently increasing.
Here is a great thing which this country is asked to do. It is asked to extend its commitments at a time when its defensive forces are being limited in every possible way. It is being asked to take on new responsibilities at a time when, Heaven knows, we all feel our responsibilities to be heavy enough. Eminent pacifists, eminent international experts, say, after full consideration, that in return for this great concession by this country we should at least require what we can reasonably require, namely, a reduction
of armaments by those other countries which so far have shown no intention and no desire whatever to limit their armaments.
These are no exaggerated statements. The proposals which the Government make are not merely, as is admitted by the under-Secretary himself, a harmonising of the Pact of Paris with the Covenant of the League of Nations. This is, to use the American phrase, "putting teeth into the Pact." There was no suggestion from the United States that the enormous and crushing sanctions of the League of Nations should be written into the Pact. The proposal is brought forward by the Continental jurists, and admittedly as an extension both of the Pact and of the Covenant. We are accustomed in our legislation to the codification of important laws, but this is always the subject of particular examination by a Committee of both Houses, which has to affirm that no new proposals are imported into the legislation by that codification process. I believe that what the representatives of many of the States had in mind when they agreed to the harmonising of those two documents was a codification; and the great extension which took place under these Amendments—the extension of Article XVI, let alone the others. of which I do not wish to speak for a moment—is, as is agreed by the jurists who examined it, and is agreed by the hon. Member who, has just spoken, an extension of our commitments under the Pact.
Surely the extension of those commitments to engage in coercive, if not in actually warlike acts, as a result of the signature of a Pact to abstain from war, is one of the oddest developments which have been seen in international affairs. We signed a Pact that we would not fight, and now it is being turned into a Pact that we will fight. Of course, that may be sound, and it may be necessary and I am most interested in the argument of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that if force is overwhelming, if everybody knows it is going to be applied, the dangers are less. We have had that argument before, and it is a very strong argument and a very powerful argument. It was brought forward in Continental debates on more than one occasion, but it is odd to hear those belligerent senti-
ments from the pacifist lips of hon. Members opposite. We are to extend our commitments to bring in the force of Great Britain in case of the breaking of engagements under the Pact of Paris. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is not the Pact of Paris, which was a peace pact and not a belligerent pact. What His Majesty's Government propose is to turn the action of the signing of a pact to preserve peace into an engagement, in certain circumstances, if not to declare war at any rate to bring in the full weight of economic sanctions under the League; and Heaven knows where the boundary between the full weight of those sanctions and of actual warlike acts is to be drawn.
The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker) said that the difference between him and ourselves was that he believed it was possible to abolish war in this generation and we did not. That is not at all the difference between us. The difference between us is that at the moment he proposes to extend into fields into which it has not been extended before the liability of Great Britain, and we say that the gravest consideration should be given to the terms by the nation before any such extension should be made. That is the point that separates us. For His Majesty's Government to say at this hour that they are going to that international conference with no conception as to whether they will or will not obtain anything in return for this sacrifice which we are being asked to make is, I venture to say, one of the most remarkable admissions of a weak, vacillating, and impotent foreign policy, that has ever been acknowledged.

MALTA.

Mr. FOOT: I wish to draw the attention of the House to another subject, namely, that of Malta. A number of Members of this House are anxious that this question should be discussed before we separate. I had the honour of handing to the Prime Minister this week a declaration on this subject which has been carefully prepared by a number of public men and it is signed by a number of very distinguished men in the State as well as by Members of all parties in this House. Perhaps the House will permit me to read that memorandum. It states:

1. "We, whose names appear hereunder, desire to place on record our support of
His Majesty's advisers in the stand they have taken in the dispute which has arisen between the British Government and the Vatican in relation to Malta.

2. Whilst deploring the necessity for the temporary suspension of representative institutions in Malta, we support the Government in their decision, which was made inevitable by the action of the Roman Catholic authorities.

3. We support the action of the Government in repudiating acceptance of a condition as to the personality of the Head of the Maltese Administration, which constitutes nothing less than a claim to interfere in the domestic politics of a British Colony.'

4. We welcome the declaration of the Government, that, during the interregnum, the existing Ministry will be retained in office, and we attach the utmost importance to the statement of Lord Passfield, H.M. Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the House of Lords on 25th June, 1930, viz.:
'We have retained the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, and his colleagues in office; we have saved their position. We have not allowed them to be eliminated. … We are not in any sense giving way to the demand of the Vatican that Lord Strickland and his colleagues should be removed, and we have no intention of doing so.'

5. We ask that the claim recently made by the Archbishop of Malta, that clerics cannot be summoned before a lay tribunal (except with ecclesiastical assent), shall be formally and definitely repudiated.

6. We declare our opinion that the pastoral letter of the Bishops of Malta (issued on 1st May, 1930, and since approved and endorsed by the Pope), threatening severe spiritual penalties against electors, exercising their elementary right of free choice of their parliamentary representatives, is a violation of the privilege of British citizens, and is an abuse of ecclesiastical power.

7. We ask that there shall be such amendment of the Constitution of Malta as will give to the electors in that Colony legal protection in the exercise of their franchise not less than that secured by law to the electors of Great Britain."

I am hopeful that that very plain declaration will receive the support of many Members of this House, and that men of all classes of thought will be willing to attach their signature to that document. One reason why this subject is being raised, following the debate which took place on 26th June, is, that certain events have arisen upon which I think the opinion of this House should be taken. One particular event has been the publication of the Vatican White
Book. Up to that time we were not in possession of full information, but that
book has now been published and it is being very widely read by the people of this country. The Vatican White Book gives us certain new information on this question and a very strong complaint has been made by Roman Catholics that before the publication of that book the Government had only put before the country a prejudiced and one-sided view of the position, and the White Book has been published in order to present both sides of the question.

There is certain information in this White Book which I would like the House to consider. Early in that document there is a reference to what took place in Malta early last year when three English Bishops went to Malta—not a very remarkable thing to do. They were three eminent Bishops. The Bishop of Gibraltar, the Bishop of Blackburn, and the Bishop of Winchester. They went with two laymen, distinguished men in the Anglican Church. When they arrived at Malta, they were allowed to hold their conference in the Governor's House, which is his private residence, and the Governor is a Protestant. They went there, not for the purpose of proselytisation, but in order to deal with the interests of the non-Roman Catholics in that Colony, who at times number 40,000 people. No Roman Catholics were invited to the conference. One would have thought that no objection would have been taken, because, after all, there is no territory in the world that is historically more hospitable than Malta. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that very many years ago there came to Malta a shipwrecked man, who was a prisoner on his way to Rome, and he said that he was received by the chief man of the island and treated courteously for three days, and that the barbarians showed him and his company no little kindness. That is what happened nearly two thousand years ago.

Mr. EDE: But he got bitten all the same.

Mr. FOOT: Malta is not merely a hospitable island, but there is a section in its Constitution which lays down that all persons in Malta shall have full liberty of conscience and the free exercise of their respective modes of worship. What happened? One of the Bishops of
Malta, the same man who has now threatened the electors with the pains of hell if they fail to vote for his nominee, raised objection to the presence of three English Bishops in Malta and to the conference which they were holding in the Governor's House. He took his objection to Rome, and, if hon. Members will turn to the Vatican White Book, they will find that the diplomatic machinery of Rome itself—the Vatican—was brought to bear in order to express the heinousness of the crime that had been done in Malta, that three spiritual Peers of this Realm, three Bishops of the Church of England, should have been allowed to hold a conference in the Governor's private residence, the residence of a Protestant Governor. I quote that incident to show that is the atmosphere in that island, and what is the spirit of ecclesiastical domination there.
There is another point. We have heard a great deal about the enormities of Lord Strickland. One of the capital charges against Lord Strickland is that he allowed this thing to happen. The answer that Lord Strickland makes is virtually this:
I was asked upon the matter, and I said it did not concern me at all. I said that this was a matter which concerned the Governor himself.
I ask Members of this House to consider the fact that one of the capital charges brought by the Vatican in the White Book against the Prime Minister of an English Colony was that this should have happened in a Colony where he was the Prime Minister. There is a second event that has happened, and that is the declaration of the Archbishop of Malta that what we have done here has been done simply to spite the Pope, and that we are robbing the people of that island of their Constitution; that the Pastoral Letter will still stand; that we in this country do not understand what mortal sin really is; and that to vote on the lines that he reprobated would have been not merely wrong, but a sin equal to both robbery and murder?

Mr. THURTLE: Robbery or murder?

Mr. FOOT: Robbery or murder. To vote for a nominee whom he reprobated would have been a crime, a mortal sin equal to robbery or murder. The third event that has happened has been the
allocution of the Pope on the 30th June, when he virtually endorsed and approved the action of the Bishops. On the 16th July there was published in the Vatican newspaper an article dealing with what has been said in this House of Commons, and the writer deplored the fact that in this House of Commons we had referred to the Vatican as a foreign Power. That is a phrase which has not only been used in this House, but has been used by controversialists elsewhere. If the Vatican is not a foreign Power, what is the meaning of the arrangement that was made not long ago between Mussolini and the Pope? If it is not a foreign Power, what is the meaning of the Blue Book? The Blue Book sets out the correspondence conducted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Under the Maltese Constitution all foreign affairs are reserved to the British Government, and the correspondence has been carried on by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for one reason only, that the Vatican is a foreign Power. One hardly knows why that criticism should be made. In addition there have been criticisms made in this country. Only yesterday every Member of the House was supplied with a copy of a paper containing a letter or a sermon of a Roman Catholic priest in London who, taking advantage of the toleration that is allowed in this country but is denied in Malta, accused the British Government of having delivered a series of foul blows. That is the present position.
I want to bring home to hon. Members the importance of that question contained in the declaration I read just now, the question of the privilegium fori. May I narrate what happened only a few months ago, in the latter part of last year? The Maltese Government decided that they would take criminal proceedings against a priest. Thereupon the Archbishop of the island said he would refuse his permission to those proceedings being taken. The Maltese Government said, "We do not need your permission." If this man has committed an offence, he is amenable to the laws of the land. The ecclesiastics said, "But we have the canon law." The canon law threatens with excommunication anyone who will bring before the Law Courts any priest without the consent of the superior ecclesiastics. The Maltese Government replied that that condition of
things was wiped out a century ago. "Yes," replied the ecclesiastics, "but it was never wiped out with our consent." We are faced with this claim in a British colony, which would never be tolerated in any part of the world, in an island where there are more priests in proportion to the population than in any other community in the world, where the Church owns a third of the irremovable wealth of the island. If this claim were tolerated you would have one section of the community superior to the law, outside the law and above the law and you would have a condition of things which could not be tolerated by any self-respecting Government in the world. That was resisted by the Maltese Ministers. It was an invidious thing for them to do. They were all members of the Roman Catholic Church. They took their stand against the ecclesiastical authorities of their own Church and, on taking that stand, they were fighting our battle as well as their own and they deserve the gratitude of this country and not its criticism. Furthermore, we are left in the position that that claim has been asserted and never withdrawn and we are asking that it shall be finally, definitely and formally repudiated by the British Government.
There is another question that I have to raise as to the position of the Maltese Ministers. The Prime Minister of this country made a declaration in answer to a question that I put to him. He said:
The existing Ministers will be retained in office and will be available in a consultative capacity in so far as the Governor chooses to make use of their services.
Another declaration was made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the same time. I will not repeat it—some part of it was contained in the Memorandum I read just now—but Lord Passfield put the greatest possible emphasis upon the fact that the Ministers were to be retained in office and that we would resist the claim of the Vatican that they could at their will drive out of any British Colony Ministers who had been elected by the votes of the people. It is a matter of the greatest possible consequence that no steps shall be taken for the elimination of these Ministers. There has been published in the course of the last two days an ordinance by the Governor-General—Ordinance No. 5.
It is upon that Ordinance that I want to ask one or two questions of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Colonies in this House. The Ordinance is one which has most serious implications; it has raised grave apprehension in the minds of those who have studied it. These Ministers have made great sacrifices, and, as I said just now, they deserve the consideration and not the penalisation of this House. I beg of the Government, who up to this time have had the very loyal support of all parties in this House as well as of the opinion in this country, not to take any step which is going to lay them open to criticism by a disappointed community. I believe it to be a matter of the utmost consequence that the position of these men shall not be imperilled and that they shall not be stripped of their authority and power so that the retention of their offices will be made impossible. We are on the eve of the Recess, and I ask that during the time of the Recess no such step as that will be taken. I trust that that assurance can be given by the hon. Member the Under-Secretary.
I also wish to ask him if the Government can now give us any information about the publication of further documents. Some consideration was given to that matter in another place when the debate arose, and it was also raised in this House. I am going to ask the hon. Member in particular, if in the publication of further documents he will set out the correspondence in which the Church in Malta made a claim to the immunity of priests and the replies that were made by the Maltese Government. I ask whether in that further publication of documents he will give the answers of the Maltese Government to the charges that were made against Lord Strickland by the Vatican. In the British Blue Book—and I ask hon. Members of the House to note it—there is a long list of the Vatican's charges against Lord Strickland. The formal replies were made by the Maltese Government to those charges. We think that in Government documents made available in this country there should be the answers as well as the charges. That was the claim which was made by Lord Cushenden, and greater importance is attached to that claim because the Vatican has repeated and re-published its list of
charges, and the Vatican White Paper has gone out to all the world. Is not Lord Strickland entitled to ask, if in Government documents there is a long indictment with many counts against him, that at least in the same documents there shall be the reply he made to those charges.
I hope the Government will also consider the necessity of the publishing to this House the Ordinances which have been adopted in Malta since the representative institutions were suspended. There is only one other aspect of the question to which I ask the intelligent attention of the House and that is with regard to the request which I am going to make, after consultation with those interested in this matter, that there shall be set up a Royal Commission to deal with this Maltese difficulty. I know that the House may be reluctant to have another Royal Commission, but I believe that there are some questions facing us here which cannot be answered unless there is an inquiry by those who are not concerned with the local controversy. In particular, I ask that there shall be an inquiry into the charge made against the Maltese Government in respect to the administration of that Colony. I hope that the House will allow me to tell the facts of the case. On the 2nd of June in last year, Mgr. Robinson, the Apostolic Delegate, having conducted an inquiry into the affairs of Malta lasting five or six weeks, left Malta for Rome. While he was in Malta he was courteously and hospitably received. He was on friendly and courteous terms with the Governor and with the Ministry. On the day that he left, the Governor wrote him a letter thanking him for the courtesy that had been shown. On the 16th June, 1929, that is, fourteen days later, Mgr. Robinson put his name to a document containing this paragraph:
It is no exaggeration to say that Malta at present is subjected to a regime of terror and of inquisitorial despotism, in which the Opposition in Parliament is disarmed, its newspapers deceived, the courts threatened, justice suspended, the Constitution in danger, the country in tumult and the Church and Religion openly attacked.
That was 14 days after his reception in Malta by the Governor and the Ministers. He describes a condition of things in regard to which the British Government,
not knowing that the document had been signed by Mgr. Robinson, sent to the Cardinal Secretary of State the comment that the allegations
imply a regrettable readiness on its (the Holy See's) part to believe His Majesty's Government to have been conniving at tyranny and persecution in British territory.
When these words, which no one knew had been written by Mgr. Robinson, came to the notice of the Maltese Government they replied that they were
a string of malicious and infamous misstatements.
If there was a suspension of the Constitution and everyone was in a state of terror, what can be said about the British Governor for tolerating a condition of things that would be a disgrace to any Imperial Government? If the words are true, what can be said of the Maltese Government. If they are not true, then the Maltese Ministers who have been maligned are entitled to their vindication. It was upon the document containing that amazing declaration that the Pope decided that the head of the Maltese Government was persona non grata, and asked for his removal.
I recovered from the waste paper basket of another hon. Member of this House yesterday a book entitled "Malta, the Island of Sunshine," written by the Maltese Government Tourist Bureau setting out the immense advantages of a very beautiful country, and saying that it is a most desirable and restful place to which holiday visitors could go and where residents might make their homes. What would be the effect upon the reader of that book if, having seen the beautiful illustrations and having read the invitation to visit Malta, he saw that there was printed on it, on the authority of Mgr. Paschal Robinson, Apostolic Delegate and now Papal Nuncio to the Irish Free State these words:
It is no exaggeration to say that Malta at present is subjected to a regime of terror and inquisitorial despotism in which the Opposition is disarmed, and its newspapers deceived, the courts threatened, justice suspended, the Constitution in danger, the country in tumult and the Church and religion openly attacked.
I can quite understand Mgr. Robinson taking the position of Papal Nuncio at Rome, and being anxious to get as far away from Malta as he could. I hope
that an inquiry will be set up and that the charge against Maltese Ministers will be proved to be true or untrue. Another question to be raised before the Royal Commission would be the language problem in that country. Let Members of the Labour party remember that 80 per cent. of the people in Malta know nothing but the Maltese language, and that the normal language of the Law Courts is Italian, which is to them a foreign language. Consequently, a man there may be tried on a most serious indictment in a language not a word of which he understands. It is the language question which, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said, is at the root of this difficulty. That language monopoly is maintained principally by the ecclesiastics and the lawyers in that island, and it is a monopoly which, in the interests of Imperial government and of the people themselves, should be broken down.
There is another gap to be filled up in the Maltese Constitution. That Constitution was set up in 1921 and we have now had experience of its working for many years. In this country we have safeguards to secure to any voter full freedom in the exercise of its choice. That protection has been given as the result of generations of struggle. Is it not fair to ask that we should secure to the humblest elector in Malta what we would secure to the humblest elector in this country? I ask that the inquiry should be set up so that when the interregnum ends that protection shall be secured.
That is all I have to say, and I ask the pardon of the House for keeping it so long on a matter on which I feel deeply, because I know that what is happening in Malta does not affect this country only. It is, of course, going to raise questions in this country. I have put this question and I can get no answer. If it is mortal sin to vote for the supporters of the Strickland ministry because of its opposition to ecclesiastical rule in Malta, is it not mortal sin also here to vote in support of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary at Burnley at the next Election? I suggest to the House it will affect not merely Malta and this country, but the issues raised there are going to cause reverberations lasting a long time and affect-
ing every country in the world. Because, in the course of years, other communities will be ready for constitutional government and it will have to be decided on what terms a constitution will be granted. I only hope that this Royal Commission can be set up so that when we arrive at our decision it will be with a knowledge of the facts, so that our decisions may not be wrong but consistent with our traditions and history. We should remember what was once said by John Milton:
Let not England forget her precedence in teaching the nations how to live.

Mr. OLDFIELD: It is not a pleasant or easy task which I set myself to follow the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). I could very much have wished that the hon. Member had not brought up this question at all now. I cannot see how the bringing of it up, and particularly in the treatment of it, can be very helpful in Malta at present. The position in Malta is of course that of a deadlock, and, with the exception of the suggestion—a suggestion I consider quite interesting—that there shall be a Royal Commission into Maltese affairs—the hon. Gentleman has put forward no kind of constructive suggestion at all as to what shall be done in that island. My difficulties are great. To begin with, I have not in my mind such a simplification as the hon. Member. To him everything seems black or white, and it is very black at the moment in Malta. I do not look at it with so many preconceptions as the hon. Member. Among the profound doubts and difficulties to be met in going through this highly complicated correspondence there is this one, that the Maltese quarrel is a family quarrel among Catholics, and it is extremely difficult to put before the House of Commons in any way intelligible to them a quarrel which is all the time carried on within the boundaries and limits of Catholic morality. The conception of a universal moral law to which we are all subject is a strong one held by the majority of people in Malta. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate the limitation of the argument as it is an argument among Catholics.

Mr. FOOT: If that is so, will the hon. Member explain why so many members of his own Church in Malta bitterly protest that they have been denied the rights of their Church.

Mr. OLDFIELD: That just bears out my point, that it is a quarrel among Catholics. To be denied the Roman Catholic Sacrament would mean very little to the hon. Member, but it means a great deal to the people in Malta—[Interruption]—who are at present at variance with the Church, and if there are so many Roman Catholics who take the view of the hon. Member it is a great pity, for the sake of a peaceful approach to this problem, that the hon. Member did not ask one of them to put the case. He has mixed it up with so much general denunciation of Roman Catholicism and with so much No Popery cry—[Interruption.] Unfortunately he will create that impression amongst the Catholic community in this country, in Ireland, in the Dominions and in Malta, and it is a pity, since it is a quarrel among Catholic people about Catholic matters, that the hon. Member could not have got one of that religion to have put the case instead of himself.
After all, this is a quarrel of considerable standing, and it is also one in which personalities enter to a most extraordinary degree. The hon. Member has treated it as though it was wholly based on great matters of principle. I doubt whether he is quite right. The population of the whole island of Malta is about the size of an average Metropolitan Borough in London, and when you are dealing with an island with a population as small as that personalities are far more important and undoubtedly have much greater weight than in a large and thickly populated country like our own. There is no doubt that even in the early clays, when he was Sir Gerald Strickland, that Lord Strickland created a very unfortunate impression in Malta. It was the unanimous wish of the elected members of the Council under the constitution as it was in 1901 that Lord Strickland, or Sir Gerald Strickland as he then was, should be promoted elsewhere, and he was promoted elsewhere to the Leeward Islands from where lie went to Australia. His Governorship in Australia was not a fortunate one. Let me quote from an article in the "Times" of 13th September, 1907, which says:
Unfailing tact, a keen sense of proportion, and the power of adapting means to ends, are qualities that are necessary in the government of the self-governing
Dominions. It cannot be said that Sir Gerald Strickland exhibited these qualities in the necessary degree.
Wherever he has been there has always been friction, and I say that because in my opinion the quarrel is very largely a personal quarrel centring around the personality of Lord Strickland. When he went there as Leader of the Opposition from 1921 to 1927 there was a whole series of events, small in themselves, almost petty, but which nevertheless are just those things which are designed to irritate people to the maximum, just the kind of things which, taken together, do create a sort of atmosphere. Things got very bad, and when in 1927 Lord Strickland became Prime Minister there quickly arose incidents which made the friction more acute. The hon. Member has referred to the case of the three Anglican Bishops. There is, I think, a great deal to be said for the hon. Member's view, and I myself would not hesitate to suggest that Anglican Bishops should come together and meet anywhere that they choose. But we are not thinking of England or of English ideas; we are considering Malta, with the atmosphere of Malta behind it. All I can say is that had the Governor wished to do a tactless thing he could not have done a more foolish thing than have invited to meet him three Anglican Bishops in what was, it is true, the private house of the Governor, but which, just because it was the private house of the Governor, was to a certain extent a public building of Malta, with associations that may be very dear to the Maltese—long association with the Order of the Knights of Malta and so on.
I think one can quite safely say that that action, though not a wrongful action. was exceedingly tactless. It was exactly the kind of thing that in a small community of 200,000 people would be likely to arouse feelings and make things worse than they were. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the other charge relating to the Franciscan monk, Micallef. I should think that the hon. Member did not mention that because, in fact, one thing comes out quite clearly, and that is that the ecclesiastical authorities in that case were right and were admitted to be right by the British Government. This Franciscan monk, for reasons of discipline, mainly because the religious house, was, it was thought, not being conducted in a
fitting and edifying way, was visited by Monsignor Carta, who ordered and recommended that the monk should go away.

Dr. DAVIES: Why?

Mr. OLDFIELD: Because it was considered that things were not going well. But that monk was ordered, not out of the British Empire, but, in the first place, was offered a post in India. It was only when he objected to going to India that he was sent outside the Empire to Sicily. It was the first point on which there was friction and trouble, and it was the point on which the Maltese Government was subsequently proved wrong and the ecclesiastic authorities were proved to be within their rights. This trouble led the Government of Malta to ask for an Apostolic visitor. There may be reasons for another independent investigation, but undoubtedly this investigation was as independent as an investigation could possibly be. At the request of the British Government the Vatican was asked to send this Apostolic visitor, and the Vatican having previously ascertained that the man they chose was thoroughly acceptable to the British Government, they sent him, and he had a perfectly free hand to make the investigation in Malta. The curious thing is that it is not until Lord Strickland and the Ministry find out how adverse Mgr. Robinson's report is that we hear any kind of complaint about Mgr. Robinson at all. All the time that they thought he was going to produce a favourable report, there was nothing too good for him, everything was placed at his disposal, and it was even suggested that special laws should be made to facilitate him in his work. It was only afterwards when it was found out how thoroughly hostile that report was—and incidentally it was so hostile, that the Vatican at first did not wish to publish it—that Mgr. Robinson's credentials, so to speak, were criticised in any adverse way.

Mr. FOOT: The whole statement as put by the hon. Member in relation to Mgr. Robinson and his visit is in many respects inaccurate. This was not a general inquiry into Malta. Mgr. Robinson was asked by the British Government to deal with difficulties which had arisen through the intense participation of the priests in local politics.

Mr. OLDFIELD: No, that was one of the suggestions made, but when the Apostolic visitor was sent, the Vatican expressly said that they could not accept the statement that the troubles in Malta were due to the political interference of the priests. The Apostolic visitor was sent there with very wide terms of reference to investigate the whole of the causes of the trouble. But I wish to come now as time is short, to the main part of the trouble and that is the fact that on 1st May the Archbishops and Bishops of Malta issued their Apostolic letter in which they said that it was mortal sin to vote for Lord Strickland or support his party in any way. I agree that that Is a very extreme step. I also agree that it was probably a very inopportune step. I think had the Bishops not published that Pastoral letter, the elections would have taken place in the natural course of events, and Lord Strickland would have been peacefully eliminated by popular vote which would have been a very much more sensible way of doing it than the present way. Frankly, for political reasons, I am very sorry indeed, and I think it was a political blunder that the Bishops should have published their Apostolic letter. But I could not admit for one moment that there are not cases where it would be the clear duty of an Archbishop or a Bishop to give moral guidance to his flock, even to the extent of saying that in certain circumstances it was a mortal sin to vote for certain candidates.
I do not think any Catholic could admit that there are not circumstances in which, according to our beliefs, it is perfectly justifiable for an archbishop or a bishop or a responsible ecclesiastic to interfere. Whether this is a justifiable case or not is a matter for discussion, but that such cases exist is absolutely undoubted from our point of view. We are at a deadlock for this reason. Quite clearly, you cannot expect the archbishops to withdraw their statement. The archbishops did not manufacture a sin. They merely called attention to a state of facts which was existent and they said "it is the fact that if you vote for this man, you will be committing a sin." But no archbishop can create a sin and no archbishop can make a thing right which is actually wrong. Therefore, hon. Members will see that it is impossible for these archbishops to withdraw their considered
statements that to vote in such a way, in certain circumstances, was mortal sin. I hope they may be able to modify that statement a little, so as to get out of the deadlock which exists. To expect a withdrawal of the statement, as I think some hon. Members do, is altogether impossible.
I am not at all averse to the hon. Member's suggestion that there should be another inquiry, and another inquiry from outside, for it seems to me that there is quite enough explosive matter just at present to justify a very careful inquiry. Malta may be a small island, but considerations like this are just those things which cause real trouble and make for real disturbance, and I think the best course which the hon. Member for Bodmin can adopt is to say as little himself in public as possible on the subject. It may be that the hon. Member gets a response and will get a very quick response from many Members in this House, but the attitude of the hon. Member and the speech which he made are really going to be of very little use in helping matters in Malta at all. If hon. Members are going to raise the question of what are the proper occasions upon which the Church may make a pronouncement upon politics, and if hon. Members are going to deny that there are any such occasions—of course, many would—if those views were to be practised, it would make a most awkward situation in many different parts of the Empire. We might, for instance, be suspending the Constitution of the Irish Free State very easily, and we might be suspending the Canadian Constitution as well, possibly for some clerical interference, so-called, in Quebec.
If we start considering this Maltese question on the very broad and basic lines of principle which the hon. Member has brought forward, we shall get ourselves into very great difficulties indeed. I think that, on the lines of considering it a practical difficulty, something may perhaps be done to ease the situation and bridge the difficulty, but I ask the hon. Member, if he can, to realise that this quarrel is a quarrel between one Catholic set of people and another, and not to judge it from a point of view which is outside the whole conception of Catholic feeling as to be meaningless altogether to the Catholic population of
Malta. He had better accept the limitations imposed upon this problem, and within those limitations, especially if there is an easing away of the actual personalities, who, it seems to me, are causing so much of the trouble, I am not hopeless that some way out can be found. I hope that before very long we shall have a General Election in Malta, which will show quite clearly what the people of Malta wish to do. After all, if the people of Malta wish to be advised by their Bishop in that way, it is a very difficult thing for an outside country like ourselves to interfere, and I think that by far the wisest thing would be to have a General Election. Accepting the limitations of the position, accepting the moral power of the clergy, which the hon. Member cannot get over, I would welcome, first of all, that there should be a free General Election in Malta—

Mr. FOOT: What does the hon. Member mean by "free"?

Mr. OLDFIELD: An election allowing free play for the internal forces in Malta.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: Without interference from Rome !

4.0 p.m.

Mr. OLDFIELD: With interference if you will, with the strongly expressed opinion if you will, of the local bishops and the clergy in Malta. You will never get freedom at all by imposing a lot of very unacceptable propositions such as perhaps the hon. Member for Bodmin would impose. I think there should be an election, and that there should be a referendum and that the referendum should be something to this effect: "Do you or do you not resent the attitude of your bishops and archbishops in publishing their Pastoral, and do you or do you not want an election?" I think if these questions were answered, and I think the one about the election would probably be in the affirmative—

Mr. THURTLE: Suppose that such a question as that were put, would it be a mortal sin if they were answered in the negative?

Mr. OLDFIELD: Far be it from me to judge what would and what would not be a mortal sin. If this expedient and the expedient of an election proved useless, then we might have the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bodmin and have an outside inquiry. It is a most difficult
thing to make a speech in this atmosphere on a very delicate question. I am only too well aware that there are two sides, and in this matter the whole issue is confused and complicated beyond imagination. I do not wish to criticise in a hostile way the manner in which the Government have tackled the question. I think the Government have been very restrained. If I have said anything of a provocative character, I think it may possibly have been on account of the approach of the hon. Member for Bodmin, which, of course, is not my approach.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): We are already due in another place and the eloquence of my two hon. Friends has left very little time for me to comment on their observations. I make no complaint about the raising of this subject. I know the keen interest which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) takes in it, and I am not surprised at his desire to speak on it. This has, however, naturally led to the reply that we have had from the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Old-field), about whose sincerity I am equally convinced. I think we all agree he made a very temperate and restrained speech. It is fortunate—in view of the shortness of the time that I have—that, as far as the view of the Government is concerned, there is no material change in the position since the subject was last raised in this House. There is, therefore, no occasion for me to make any new statement. As the House is aware, His Majesty's Government only took the decision they did in this matter with very great reluctance, and it was only after very careful consideration that they found themselves forced to the conclusion that no other course was open to them. The constitution of Malta has as its fundamental basis the right of free choice by a democratic electorate, and when conditions arose which appeared seriously to affect this fundamental basis His Majesty's Government felt they had no option but to suspend the operation of that constitution. It is gratifying to know that the Government's action has had the approval not only of the important section of public opinion in this country for which the hon. Member for Bodmin spoke, but also of a large body of opinion, both here and in Malta,
which most certainly cannot be described as having any anti-Catholic bias. I am very glad—in this connection—that the hon. Member for South-East Essex reminded us again that this is a dispute between different sections of Catholics, and therefore has nothing of the Protestant and Catholic controversy in it.
The hon. Member for Bodmin said he did not like Ordinance V. I have simply to say, in reply, that there has been no change in the policy which was previously announced by the Prime Minister and by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State. It must, of course, be recognised that the position in Malta at the present time is an abnormal one, and that the position of all concerned must to some extent be abnormal. Adjustments of various kinds may require to be made from time to time as circumstances require.
On the question of the publication of additional documents, I have already explained the reasons which convinced His Majesty's Government that this course is not at present advisable. The occasion may arise, but there seems no need at present for further publication. The position is the same in regard to a Royal Commission. There may be grounds for having one, but this is certainly not the time for it.
We are anxious to see a calm consideration of these controversial matters by those who can bring them to an end. His Majesty's Government themselves cannot depart from the principles they have laid down as those upon which the functioning of the Malta constitution must depend. We hope that wise counsels will soon prevail and so enable the Maltese people to enjoy again those democratic privileges which we and they so highly value.
There are a number of other matters with which, had time permitted. I would have dealt, but I think I have said enough to show that—broadly—the position is not changed. His Majesty's Government are pursuing the course which they had regretfully to take up, and they will pursue it so long as circumstances require. I would deprecate heat and passion about this controversy. It is truly a case where we can say, "Blessed are the peacemakers." I hope that some means will be found by which the people of Malta will again, before long, be able to have their full
constitution restored, and I hope that all of us in this House and outside will work towards that end.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: We all sympathise with the point of view of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), but in reference to what he said in regard to the interference of a foreign Power in the concerns of the British Empire, I recall to the memory of the House that only a few weeks ago, in a matter in which the United States was concerned, he was introducing a Bill to subject British seamen to the loss of their daily bread because he feared that they might be doing something that would annoy a foreign Power. I think he should apply the same reasoning to this case.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned,

5.0 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: (standing in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission, under the Great Seal, was read, authorising the Royal Assent to—

1. Appropriation Act, 1930.

2. Finance Act, 1930.

3. Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis and Asbestosis) Act, 1930.

4. Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Act, 1930.

5. Overseas Trade Act, 1930.

6. Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930.

7. Illegitimate Children (Scotland) Act, 1930.

8. Coal Mines Act, 1930.

9. Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Act, 1930.

10. Education (Scotland) Act, 1930.

11. Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act, 1930.

12. Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1930.

13. Housing Act, 1930.

14. Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930.

15. Sea Fisheries Regulation (Expenses) Act, 1930.

16. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1930.

17. Road Traffic Act, 1930.

18. Land Drainage Act, 1930.

19. Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act, 1930.

20. British Museum Act, 1930.

21. Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1930.

22. London Naval Treaty Act, 1930.

23. Public Works Loan Act, 1930.

24. Public Works Facilities Act, 1930.

25. Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act, 1930.

26. Invergordon Water Supply Act, 1930.

27. Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

28. East Lothian Western District Water Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

29. Churches and Universities (Scotland) Widows' and Orphans' Fund Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

30. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1930.

31. Salford Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

32. St. Helen's Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

33. Wolverhampton Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

34. Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

35. Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1930.

36. Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1930.

37. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1930.

38. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Goole and Oldham) Act, 1930.

39. Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Molton Rural) Act, 1930.

40. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Doncaster, St. Ives (Cornwall) and Scarborough) Act, 1930.

41. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Brighton) Act, 1930.

42. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Accrington, Bognor Regis and Newton Abbot) Act, 1930.

43. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Great Torrington, Minehead and Taf Fechan Water Supply Board) Act, 1930.

44. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Folkestone Water) Act, 1930.

45. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Uxbridge Joint Hospital District) Act, 1930.

46. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Essex) Act, 1930.

47. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis) Act, 1930.

48. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Act, 1930.

49. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (East Dean and United Districts Joint Hospital District) Act, 1930.

50. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Macclesfield and Willesden) Act, 1930.

51. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent and Worthing) Act, 1930.

52. Shoreham Harbour Act, 1930.

53. London Building Act, 1930.

54. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1930.

55. Southampton County Council (Bursledon Bridge) Act, 1930.

56. London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Act, 1930.

57. Manchester Corporation (Improvements) Act, 1930.

58. South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas Act, 1930.

59. Ascot District Gas and Electricity Act, 1930.

60. Brixham Gas and Electricity Act, 1930.

61. Middlesex County Council Act, 1930.

62. London, Midland and Scottish Railway (No. 2) Act, 1930.

63. Southern Railway Act, 1930.

64. Stockport Corporation Act, 1930.

65. Walsall Corporation Act, 1930.

66. Falmouth Corporation Water Act, 1930.

67. Stockton-on-Tees Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1930.

68. Manchester Extension Act, 1930.

69. Cardiff Corporation Act, 1930.

70. Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Act, 1930.

71. Rotherham Corporation Act, 1930.

72. Glasgow Corporation Act, 1930.

73. Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1930.

74. Bristol Cattle Market Act, 1930.

75. Bristol Corporation (No. 2) Act, 1930.

76. Bournemouth Corporation Act, 1930.

77. Dartford Tunnel Act, 1930.

78. Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1930.

79. Leicester Corporation Act, 1930.

80. Boston Corporation Act, 1930.

81. Bootle Corporation Act, 1930.

82. London United Tramways Act, 1930.

83. Southport Corporation Act, 1930.

84. Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power Act, 1930.

85. Redcross Street Burial Ground (Bristol) Act, 1930.

86. Hartlepool Gas and Water Act, 1930.

87. River Lee (Flood Relief, etc.) Act, 1936.

88. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.) Act, 1930.

89. West Ham Corporation Act, 1930.

90. Argyll Trust Estate Act, 1930.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:—

1. Pluralities Measure, 1930.

2. Benefices (Transfer of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1930.

PROROGATION.

HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of His Majesty's Command, as followeth:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

My relations with foreign, Powers continue to be friendly.

It has given Me great pleasure to welcome in My capital Their Imperial Highnesses Prince and Princess Takamatsu, and to learn from His Imperial Highness of the gratification which the Emperor of Japan derived from the visit of My son, the Duke of Gloucester, to Japan last year to convey to His Imperial Majesty the insignia of the Order of the Garter.

At the Conference held at The Hague last January Agreements were concluded for the definite settlement of the reparation liabilities of Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria. These Agreements, together with that subsequently concluded at Paris, solved a number of difficult and delicate problems which have impeded the political as well as the financial progress of Europe; and their conclusion enabled the evacuation of the Rhineland by the Armies of Occupation to be completed on the 30th June last. The Hague Conference thus marks a decisive stage in the financial reconstruction and political tranquillisation of Europe and its success has given Me profound satisfaction.

In January it afforded Me great pleasure to open at Westminster an international conference for the limitation and reduction of naval armaments. After three months of deliberation a Treaty embodying many important points of agreement in regard to the principles of naval limitation and achieving effective economies
in the sphere of naval armaments was signed by representatives of the United States of America, France, Italy and Japan and of My Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India. In addition the Treaty embodies an agreement between My Governments and those of the United States of America and Japan fixing for a period a total tonnage limit for certain categories of warships. In this agreement the representatives of France and Italy were unable at the time of the signature of the Treaty to participate. The Conference was accordingly adjourned so as to give further time for negotiations, and these will, I trust, result in a full agreement at no very distant date.

The Optional Clause of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was signed at Geneva in September last in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, My self-governing Dominions and India, and the several instruments of ratification are now completed or nearing completion.

In October last the Prime Minister visited Washington for the purpose of an informal discussion with, the President of the United States upon various questions bearing on the peace of the world and an international agreement regarding reduction and limitation of naval armaments. Subsequently the Prime Minister visited Ottawa. The very cordial manner in which he was received caused Me the liveliest satisfaction.

A mission under the Chairmanship of Viscount D'Abernon was appointed in 1929 to consider Anglo-Argentine and Anglo-Brazilian relations, industrial, commercial and financial, with a view to their development to the mutual advantage of the countries respectively concerned.

The failure of the recent negotiations for an Anglo-Egyptian settlement occasioned Me sincere disappointment, but I hope that a successful conclusion may soon be reached.

Diplomatic relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were resumed in December last, and placed on a normal basis by the appointment of Ambassadors.

I am happy to say that the restoration of more settled conditions in Afghanistan has enabled Me to accredit a Minister to His Majesty King Nadir Shah, and to receive a representative of His Majesty in My capital.

A new Treaty of Alliance between Myself and His Majesty the King of Iraq to regulate the future relations between Our two countries, has been signed by Our respective representatives. The text of this Treaty has been laid before you.

I am glad that arrangements have been made for a meeting of the Imperial Conference in London at the end of September. I welcome the opportunities afforded by such meetings between the representatives of My several Governments for the promotion of mutual understanding and of co-operation in all matters of common concern. The Expert Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation which met in London last year presented a Report which will come before the Imperial Conference for consideration.

In accordance with an Address to Me from the Senate and Commons of Canada, the British North America Act, 1930, has been passed for the purpose of confirming and validating certain agreements entered into between My Government in Canada and the Governments of the Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

A Conference attended by Governors and other senior officials from the Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories assembled in June to discuss matters of common interest to the various territories of the Colonial Empire.

During the Session the Commission appointed by Me in pursuance of the provisions of the Government of India
Act have completed their arduous duty and have submitted to Me their Report, which has been presented to both your Houses. My Government will shortly be approaching the task of framing and submitting for your consideration proposals for the future government of India. For guidance in this matter, it is their intention to summon into conference in London representatives of the wide variety of interests in India. I earnestly pray that a spirit of mutual trust and friendship may unite all races and creeds in India, and the representatives of both countries, in their discharge of the responsibilities which the Conference will impose upon them; and I am confident that the single purpose of promoting the welfare of My Indian people will be the inspiration of every member of the Conference.

Members of the House of Commons,

I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

The high level to which unemployment has risen during the past year and the world-wide depression in trade is causing Me very grave anxiety. Measures have been passed with the object of promoting works of economic development in this country and in My Overseas Dependencies. lt is encouraging to find that schemes have been designed to provide useful employment in works of public utility of a total value of over £100,000,000. This has been made possible by a substantial contribution granted by My Government.

I have given My assent to a further Measure to facilitate snore speedy execution of works of this character by local authorities and other bodies.

Reports have been received on the inquiries undertaken into the condition of the iron and steel and cotton industries in, order to discover means of improving their position in the markets of the world, and discussion
of the recommendations made is actively proceeding between, all the interests concerned.

A Bill has been passed which amends the Unemployment Insurance Scheme in several important respects, and other legislative measures have been necessary to provide for the heavy expenditure on unemployment benefit occasioned by the great volume of unemployment.

I have given My assent to a Measure for ameliorating the conditions of miners by reducing their hours of labour and for effecting an improvement in the organisation of the mining industry.

A Measure, based generally on the recommendations of My Commission on Land Drainage, has been passed to enable essential comprehensive drainage works to be undertaken for the prevention of flooding and the consequent benefit of agriculture, and the increase of employment in rural areas.

Acts have also been passed to make further provision with respect to the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland and to provide additional moneys for improving medical service in the Highlands and Islands.

Steps are being taken to appoint an Agricultural Research Council, and with this purpose in view a Committee of the Privy Council has been appointed.

I have given My assent to Measures to facilitate the clearance and prevention of slums and the provision of better housing accommodation, both in urban and rural areas in Great Britain.

It is My earnest hope that these Measures will improve the unsatis-
factory conditions under which so many of My people dwell.

I have given My assent to a Bill which modifies the conditions applicable to certain pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and brings some new classes of persons within the benefits of the Act; to a Measure designed to improve and extend the facilities for the treatment of mental illness, and also to a Bill amending and consolidating the law relating to the regulation and control of motor vehicles.

In bidding you farewell, I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon the work which you have completed.

Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read in the House of Lords.

After which the Lord Chancellor said:

My LORDS and MEMBERS,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission under the Great seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to His Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the Twenty-eighth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued until Tuesday, the Twenty-eighth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty.

End of the First Session (opened Tuesday, 25th June, 1929) of the Thirty-fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Twenty-first year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Fifth.